Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2011–2012

Edit request from Saju2s, 25 March 2011
Plz Largest city its not mirpur its Muzaffarabad

Saju2s (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for that (like a newspaper/magazine/book or something credible)? Banaticus (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If/when you have a reliable source, please make a new edit request with that information. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

"Azad Kashmir" vs. "Azad Jammu and Kashmir"
Is there a reason why this article is called "Azad Kashmir", rather than "Azad Jammu and Kashmir"? On the AJK government website, they refer to it as "The State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir". Dracunculus (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 116.71.39.66, 16 August 2011


116.71.39.66 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Request is blank. Topher385 (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 26 November 2011
Dear Respected! Naik Saif Ali Khan Janjua('Hilal-e-Kashmir equivalant to Nishan-e Haider') is also a notable Kashmiri. He was born on 25 April 1922 in Khandbaz Tehsil Nakial (Azad Jammu & Kashmir). He was a brave Freedom Fighter.He embraced Martyrdom on 26 October 1948. On 14th March 1949, the Defence Council of Azad Jammu & Kashmir adorned him with Hilal-e-Kashmir (posthumous) and on 30th November 1995 Government of Pakistan initiated the gazette notification to declare his Hilal-e-Kashmir equilent to Nishan-e Haider. He is the only person awarded with Hilal e Kashmir which is equal to Nishan e Haider.

This may be varified by Following Link http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/awpreview/textcontent.aspx?pid=173

Kindly Include Naik Saif Ali Janjua on top of notable Kashmiris.

Thanks

Raja Muhammad Attique Afsar attiqueafsar@yahoo.com

Attiqueafsar (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your question?  Chzz  ► 21:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

-- We do not put e-mails in articles. Sorry. Katarighe (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he wants to add the person's name into the article as a notable personality belonging to the region. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you. I will find out. Katarighe (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Word "Azad" of "Azad Kashmir"
Azad is an Urdu-Langauge word which means "Liberated" or Legally Free. In Pakistan, the Pakistan-administrated Northern and Western Parts of Jammu & Kashmir are called "Azad Kashmir" or "Azad Jammu Kashmir" because these areas are freed from Indian illegal Occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.45.87.76 (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I gave the two articles some thought and did some back ground checks on the talk page discussions. Comparing the facts on ground Pakistan actually only separated Gilgit-Baltistan (formerly "Northern Areas") as a political entity (which became a unit in 1970) and that is the only difference in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Azad Kashmir. The current split seems to be a WP:POVFORK deliberately created for this purpose under the pretext of separating administrative information about the state and the conflict so as to rename the title. I think we should merge these two articles clarifying in body that Gilgit-Baltistan was separated while the rest of the Azad Kashmir is still representing the same. After all there's no separate Indian-administered Kashmir article for Jammu and Kashmir rather a redirect. Seems POV based emphasis. Pakistan-administered Kashmir as a whole is also referred to as Azad Kashmir in Pakistan and is itself non existent as an entity rather two entities which already have their articles. The conflict related content should be merged into this article and tagged in Gilgit-Baltistan article. RFC is needed to prevent much expected contentious editwars if I make a bold move here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There are previous discussions about the title on Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir which seem to have resulted in the title split and some previous editwarring over the title. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems basically reasonable; however, it would be nice to be clearer here on which title you are proposing to retain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm ofcourse proposing to retain the title of this page ie. Azad Kashmir as that is the administrative name, native name and the name used by Pakistan just like Indian-administered Kashmir retains the title used by the government. Any content not directly related to the state of Azad Kashmir can go either to Gilgit-Baltistan (the other half of Pakistan-administered Kashmir) or to the history of Azad Kashmir and the article Kashmir conflict can be added as navigation tag for most of what is being presented in the Pakistan-administered Kashmir article after merging here. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder - there's also a History of Gilgit-Baltistan article, so if this merge does happen, some of the content can go there too. Mar4d (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as appropriate. Better to have the related text in the article of existing entities than the non existing ones. The only thing Pakistan-administered Kashmir has of its own is the alternate name of the total area which can be described in those articles in a single line. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support TopGun's proposal as clarified. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have all in favour here. Let's wait for a few more days before asking to close (unless ofcourse an objection related discussion ensues)? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * About the page Pakistan-administered Kashmir after the merger; it can have 2 options:
 * 1) It can be redirected to Azad Kashmir (with hatnote on this article that the other part of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir is Gilgit-Baltistan).
 * 2) It can be converted into a disambiguation page listing Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan.
 * --lTopGunl (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article definitely needs to stay but in a different form with a specific purpose.

"Indian-administered Kashmir" is made up of only one entity called "Jammu and Kashmir". If it was made up of different entities there certainly would also be a separate article explaining how, when and why it was divided and what are the divisions. "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is made up of two entities and furthermore a third entity (Trans-Karakoram Tract) was ceded to China by Pakistan. This constitutes the reason why there is a need for this article.

This article should shortly explain that Pakistan divided "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" into two administrative entities and that a third entity was ceded to China. The reader then knows the basic information about the three entities and can decide for him/herself whether to continue with Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan or Trans-Karakoram Tract. Without such an explanatory article there is no coherent oversight for readers who come to read about "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". Otherwise (especially when redirecting to "Azad Kashmir" according to TopGun's first proposal above) an impression could be created that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is mainly "Azad Kashmir" (with the much larger Gilgit-Baltistan being marginalized). This would exclude other either current of former parts of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" from the radar of the Kashmir dispute in the eye of the normal reader. This then would be exactly in line with what Pakistan is accused by India of trying to do. JCAla (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your point about Indian administered Kashmir being a single entity has already been considered before I proposed this. Trans-Karakoram Tract and both the parts of Pakistan administered Kashmir have their own article which describe everything (and can be further improved) related to that. The fact being considered here is that the title/term Pakistan administered Kashmir is just a terminology used by UN like the Indian part. I understand the issue with the first proposal for the redirect after the merger, but a hatnote is exactly for that purpose. I'll like to point it out to you, that when an article is "moved"/merged, the redirect can not be applied with normal neutrality/NPOV objections. India's point of view about Pakistan will not be emphasized if the article is merged. The purpose of redirect is only to point to the new article which will then exist for the full purpose. So the first proposal has no issues (and as I said - I've already explained measures for that not to happen). Next, I have given the second option which exactly satisfies your point as well as any other problems that might arise later. That is the reason it's called a 'disambiguation page'. We do already have a consensus for merger here, but I was especially waiting for any opposing input (to address it) here which you have provided. The content of the article currently says everything that belongs to other articles as I said in the merger proposal. The name is the only thing which belongs to itself. We have a complete title for Kashmir conflict detailing everything. I'm sure the further division of Kashmir by Pakistan does not need a separate article - that can be covered in the two articles shortly. Even if one arises, an article for that by name and description should be created. At the moment there's not enough information on that either and I'll also give the example of some other administrative changes countries make which do not need a separate article. The province NWFP changed to KP, I don't see an article for that (and ofcourse one isn't needed). These things are not notable on their own. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The division of historic "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" into three Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Trans-Karakoram Tract is very notable and not to be compared with someone renaming NWFP to KP. This info is a minimum:


 * "Pakistan-administered Kashmir includes the two administrative entities Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan-administered Kashmir was divided into two administrative units in 1970. In 1963, Pakistan had already ceded the Trans-Karakoram Tract to China."

Also, it is very difficult to accommodate the history of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" pre-1970 (which then was one entity) into the three other articles separately. JCAla (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article does not cover any history about the combined Kashmir under Pakistan and any notable events of then are already covered in the separate articles. For your first point, I've already clarified that those areas have their dedicated articles and further dedicated articles for the disputes and this is just a name which calls for a disambg. page. The map you placed here is just a combined map of two administrative divisions. And yes, NWFP has enough notability for name change for that matter, but that is not enough in both cases to get an article, even so not on this title. Also note the history articles mentioned above. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per reasons mentioned above. Previous discussions about this issue all ended in a merger being rejected by editors. JCAla (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be an example of WP:CCC with the reasons above addressed. -- lTopGunl (ping) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You consider the reasons addressed, I do not. JCAla (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Convincing you is different than addressing your concerns which I did, with the consensus obviously being something not unanimous. -- lTopGunl (ping) 22:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per JCala Darkness Shines (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong merge A blatant WP:POVFORK I also propose and Indian-controlled Kashmir article 109.154.105.168 (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong merge as nominator, per all the issues explained in the start, per all the issues addressed for JCAla (regardless of him being convinced), per the post merge solutions I provided, per WP:POVFORK and the article has no notability of its own other than its name which also is two entities' combined name so it deserves a disambig. page at most while all the content it has is already mentioned or belongs to the list of articles that are mentioned above per Mar4d. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge, the proposal here is reasonable. Since most of this article delves into history, it would be logical to turn Pakistan-administered Kashmir into a disambiguation page itself and merge all the content into the Kashmir history articles (that's what they're for in the first place). This is consistent for reducing redundancy and at the same time ensuring NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted after closure
*Strong merge A reasonable proposal indeed considering all the arguments above a logical step would be to merge Pakistan-administered Kashmir with Azad Kashmir in fact this article may be WP:POVFORK and serves only as a biased base to some extent 86.178.31.211 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet of user:109.150.57.127 Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging
Let's merge this. I'm taking a look at it. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. What's the decision? Convert this to a disambig page or redirect to Azad Kashmir and leave a Gilgit Baltistan hat note there? Mar4d (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely, a disambig page. JCAla (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Disambig. seems like a more informative idea to me. We can review that once it is created and see if it is good that way. Pointing to just Azad Kashmir will also be some what half accurate, disambig seems the closest option (and the name is notable so disambig will do). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Mar4d (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Listing target articles

 * Kashmir conflict
 * Line of Control
 * Line of Actual Control
 * History of Azad Kashmir
 * Gilgit-Baltistan
 * Azad Kashmir

All these are valid targets for parts of the content and might as well already contain it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And History of Gilgit-Baltistan. Mar4d (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, forgot that existed. Shifting now. You can counter check it, you'll also be then clear on what I aimed to do. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to focus more on the history articles of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, since they need expansion and are created for that purpose. The history sections on the main Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan articles should meanwhile preferably (and mostly) remain the way they are in their current form (in accordance with WP:Summary style). Mar4d (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can you do a bit internal shifting/clean up to history of Azad Kashmir? It already needed wikification and is worse after it got new content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse. Just another thing: Don't you think the first two paragraphs (starting with "There are more than 20,000 pieces of rock art and petroglyphs all along the Karakoram Highway in Gilgit Baltistan...) belong on the History of Gilgit-Baltistan article instead? Mar4d (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right... I'm making the disambig page, can you shift that? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No need to. Apparently, the History of Gilgit Baltistan article already has that paragraph. This was a content fork basically. Mar4d (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... didn't see that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC) ✅. ✅. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: claimed districts
Azad_Kashmir lists all districts under control of India in Azad Kashmir, but the actual breakdown is different, with some districts such as Kargil and Ladakh actually being claimed by Gilgit Baltistan (source: http://www.claudearpi.net/maintenance/uploaded_pics/RightingtheWrongs.pdf, http://www.balawaristan.net/History/gilgit-baltistan-a-ladakh-by-hassan.html, http://jainbookdepot.com/servlet/jbgetbiblio?bno=007408)

So please remove this district data unless a Pakistani government Press release can show the full break down. I cant find any info on where the seats are reserved for these districts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.243.94 (talk • contribs)


 * Can you mention all the districts that have to be moved to Gilgit-Baltistan's claims instead so that I can move them? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know all of them like I said earlier but the obvious ones are Kargil and Ladak districts.

Also I noticed a second problem that these districts are not the original districts. Eg Ramban district and Kishtwar district and some more have been created by Indian government. So they will definately not have empty seats in the regional organisations in AK and GB. It seems best to remove these for the time being until a proper map of Pakistani claims is released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.243.94 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to explain exact changes you need here:
 * "This template may only be used when followed by a 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 new districts would still be claimed since they constitute the same area. If it is in any other order please paste exactly what you want to add/alter here for the request to complete. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok then, move the Kargil district and Ladakh district to Gilgit Baltistan. Btw when I spoke about the "new" districts what I meant was that one district was split into two. The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly in Indian control Kashmir has left 25 seats empty for the districts under control of Pakistan.  In Muzaffarabad and Gilgit there are seats left for districts in Indian control but there will be less than listed here as some districts have been split.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.243.94 (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ I moved both districts in Ladakh region (ie. Kargil and Leh) and sourced on that article. Is that what you meant? --lTopGunl (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment
azad kashmir ia truly beautifull place both visually and in terms of its historic richness, and its an integral part of india. vande mataram jai HINDBold text

All things written below are false.written by illiterate peoples.


 * Not helping your case dude Earlyriser10 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WHY FIGHT OVER NON-ESSENTIALS... THE WORLD SHOULD BE ONE. EVERY HUMAN BREATHES OXYGEN. EVERY HUMAN DIES WHEN HIS HEART STOPS TICKING. IT IS POLITICIANS WHO WANT A DIVIDED WORLD, SO THEY CAN HOLD POSITIONS OF POWER, RULE OVER PEOPLE AND SATISFY THEIR EGOS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyworld1712 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2012
The current Chief Justice is not Khawaja Shahad Ahmed. It is Muhammad Azam Khan of Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) and he took oath on June 25th 2011.

Please change 'Azad Kashmir has it own Judiciary as well with Khawaja Shahad Ahmad as its present Chief Justice' to 'Azad Kashmir has it own Judiciary as well with Muhammad Azam Khan of Mirpur (Azad Kashmir) as its present Chief Justice. He took oath on 25th June 2011.

Isy786bradford (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, can you provide reliable sources for your claim so that this can be amended? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌, unless sources are given-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 April 2012
<!Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (April 10, 1915 – July 31, 2003) also known as Bani-e-Kashmir "Father of Kashmir" and Ghazi-e-Millat, is the founder of Azad Kashmir. Born in Horna Mirah, a village of District Poonch of Kashmir, Sardar Ibrahim obtained his LLB from the University of London in 1943, and began his practice as a prosecutor in 1943 at Mirpur. He completed his BVC from Lincoln's Inn and became the first Barrister of Kashmir. He was appointed as assistant advocate general in 1944 by the then Maharaja of Kashmir. He left the government job in line with the liberation of Kashmir movement, and contested the 1946 elections with sweeping victory that made him the Member of Rajiha Sabha. He led an army of Kashmiri guerrillas against the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, after passing the resolution for Kashmir's accession to Pakistan in 1947, at his residence. Sardar and his army were unable to capture the whole Kashmiri Territory due to the resolution passed by United Nations on August 13, 1948. However, the captured area was named as Azad Kashmir and Khan was elected as its first President at the age of 32. He represented Kashmir in different capacities in the United Nations from 1948 to 1971-->

Manzar masood (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, please be specific as to where you request this passage be added. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Claimed districts
Yes, the area is claimed but are there seats reserved in the legislative assemblies for these districts? (Please find a source; if so, the Number of seats empty in Azad Kashmir's Legislative Assembly would be at least equal to or greater than the number taken!..)

In India's JK Legislative Assembly, there are 25 vacant seats which are empty for constituencies in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. See the following articles:-
 * http://flashnewstoday.com/index.php/25-seats-remain-reserved-in-jammu-and-kashmir-assembly-for-pok/
 * http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-75269.html

If you can't find a source, don't revert the edits.

--Rvd4life (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why keeping seats in the assembly is a criteria (which India has set) for claiming the area, Kashmir conflict in itself is enough to justify such. Please do not editwar and follow DR. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In the most basic form, a lot of the districts of Kashmir in India have been created by the Indian Government by splitting larger districts. As a result, Pakistan (which, as far as I am aware, does not recognize India's legitimacy in Kashmir) would not recognize this new administrative division. By including a list of India's new districts, you are implying that Pakistan recognizes India's control of Kashmir.

Other examples include Jhongsing Village, claimed as capital of Taiwan Province by the ROC Government; this is not recognised by the PRC who still show Taipei as the capital of Taiwan Province. In this way, there is a Taiwanese delegation in the PRC's National People's Congress.

--Rvd4life (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming the districts doesn't mean Pakistan is claiming the administrative area (and recognizing the legitimacy) but rather the geographical area. We have a complete article on that for Kashmir conflict. If you think there's a technical difference we can start an RFC. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead - by all means I support an RfC on this issue. --Rvd4life (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * RFC

This and the Gilgit-Baltistan article had a claimed districts list of the districts of Jammu and Kashmir. There's a dispute whether these lists should be kept. Pakistan and India both have claims on the area of Kashmir administered by each other, see Kashmir conflict. The article Jammu and Kashmir has a similar list of claimed districts of AJK and GB, which sets precedence for a similar list in AJK and GB articles. this is being opposed on the basis that seats are actually not reserved for those districts in AJK assembly and the reason for keep is the claims of Kashmir conflict itself. Should these lists be kept in Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Jammu and Kashmir articles or should be excluded from any or all of them? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: claimed districts

 * Keep in all: because these are claimed territories claimed by each country regardless of whether a moot seat in the assembly is reserved for the non administered territory or not (a criteria set by India which is a disputing party). See Kashmir conflict for detailed dispute. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove from Azad Kashmir: There is no evidence that the geography is claimed in the same divisions as they are currently administered by India (see my above explanation). --92.14.189.196 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — 92.14.189.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The geographical area doesn't automatically change. The whole of Indian administered Kashmir and Pakistan administered Kashmir is in the dispute. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, You haven't given any explanation above.. unless ofcourse you are Rvd, in that case I'll be reviewing your overlap and filling an SPI. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see here: Talk:Azad_Kashmir/Archives/2012/March --92.14.189.196 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't see your comments at that page.... -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I requested moving of Kargil and Leh districts to Gilgit Baltistan page. --92.14.189.196 (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Should be considered as an alternate account of . See Sockpuppet investigations/Rvd4life. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Jammu and kashmir has this and thus azad kashmir must contain there claim Ruffruder0 (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC) This user is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Having empty seats reserved in legislative assemblies for areas of dispute is not by any means a criteria that defines a territorial dispute. Indian administered Kashmir is disputed by Pakistan, so as such, we must indicate the areas of dispute on this article. Furthermore, Jammu and Kashmir contains Pakistani-administered districts, so it would be apt and fair that the same standards be followed in this article.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What we are dealing with is whether the new districts are recognised. Pakistan would not recognise the recent creation of Kishtwar district.  As a result they would not have it on an official list of J&K Districts.  --Rvd4life (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And does India recognize the current districts of GB and AJK? (because India would not recognize the creation of GB as a separate entity from AJK as a part of Pakistan proper, which was done in 1970... the point to note is that J&K article too actually mentions "The following districts comprise Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan" which per my understanding does not endorse a recognition from India of the two separate entities rather a claim of current districts in the claimed area. Other wise per Rvd's explanation that stands challenged too...) And how does claiming the geographical area become a recognition of the district government? That has to be answered. Let's wait for comments from an unrelated editor on that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are there any established international lawyers here on Wiki? --Rvd4life (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You can try asking the law, geography and politics related Wikiprojects. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of laws (which are words written on a piece of paper unless someone with a gun can enforce them), in real-politik, the control of a certain region belongs to the organisation or nation that has actual physical control of the region. Therefore any area of Kashmir that is Pakistan controlled should be listed out as such, and the political delineation of that region should be described as marked out by that organisation or country. India's recognition or non-recognition of a district in an area controlled by Pakistan is irrelevant to this article. Once India has invaded and occupied the districts, they may make the necessary changes, and we will update the article here accordingly. OK? Sonarclawz (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That is already done... how is that a comment on whether the claimed areas should be included (with attribution of being claimed only) in the respective articles. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove The article is about Azad Kashmir, not Pakistani territorial claims. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Its unclear to me which legislature the seats are reserved in. However territorial disputes should be documented in detail at all times in a neutral way. Outback the koala (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep if claimed as part of Azad Kashmir region, else Remove While India claims Azad Kashmir district as part of the state of Jammu & Kashmir, does Pakistan claim India-administrated districts as part of this Administrative unit?? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, both countries claim the regions controlled by the other as a part of the one in their own control. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A source please? We wouldn't need this debate about this if there was a source showing Pakistan's district map of the entire Kashmir region. --Rvd4life (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources are already in the articles for the claims. It would be filibustering to ask for a source for a knowledge as common as that. The disctrict map doesn't matter... the map of Pakistan is already present in the article which claims the full region of Indian controlled Kashmir. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, this edit does seem to challenge that. --Rvd4life (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit makes no explanation, it only adds that the area is regarded as disputed. Dispute itself here means a claim on the area by both parties. This further verifies my comment. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove in all These articles are not to reflect the POV of a government rather the reality should be written. Neither Pakistan has administered Jammu & Kashmir nor India has administered Giglit Baltistan or Azad Kashmir ever. Though claim is duly important to mention but only in Kashmir Conflict and not in these articles. Including it in any one of these articles will certainly set an example of adding similar claims in other articles too. And as far as the matter of seats in J & K assembly for AJK, let me tell you Pakistan still has some members of East Pakistan in the Federal Cabinet, so following this criteria I think East Pakistan should be listed as the fifth province in the Pakistan article. Similarly the Nawab of Junagadh supported by Pakistan, still claims reign of his state. -- S M S  Talk 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are unusual facts. I'm interested in reading more about why this is still the case. Do you have a source for this that I could read? --Rvd4life (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can go by removing in all, but keeping on Jammu and Kashmir and removing from here is double standards. Both countries are making the same claims. If it is to be added for the notability of the claim, it should be added to all three articles or removed from all of them and mentioned in the Kashmir conflict article as per SMS's suggestion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok then, I don't have any objections now to remove it from all of them. This debate died a long time ago. --Rvd4life (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

but how is that the part of Pakistan? militants had entered and people had rebelled, but then the Indian army was sent, and unless we are ready to believe that militants and rebels are what Pakistan is. dragonphoenix (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You really need to read history. I guess you are unaware of 47 war. I don't think this is related to this debate anyway. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

but in the forty seven war, a ceasefire was held, and permanent borders are still not fixed so how is this possible? dragonphoenix (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Tags why
The removal of the highly notable comments from Brad Adams and Human Rights Watch make this article highly POV, factually inaccurate and does not show a worldwide view on the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE and WP:NPOV considerations should be taken into account first. It would be a good idea to observe the precedent set in the lead of an article of a place known more prominently worldwide for human rights abuses, Jammu Kashmir. If the standards are applied there, then all is well and good. I've nevertheless asked for third opinion.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No you have not, you have asked two admins to weigh in on a content dispute, they will not do that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not re add the pointy tags, RFC is dealing with the issue. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot remove tags based on what the outcome of an RFC may be, the tags are there until the dispute is settled, I will restore them per the policy. Thank you for your wasting of my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't even have a consensus to tag it. I will report you if you do so, you've already done that on the GB counter part and this is enough. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not need a consensus to tag a bloody article, the whole point of the tags is that there is no consensus. Report away but watch out for the boomerang. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Recently a quote from Brad Adams was removed form this article, should it be restored? This is the content removed. Brad Adams the Asia director at Human Rights Watch has said in 2006 Although ‘azad’ means ‘free,’ the residents of Azad Kashmir are anything but, The Pakistani authorities govern Azad Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms.if the country is said to be free then why pakistani government is governing it?? .


 * Restore as reliably sourced and it is the only criticism of the Pakistani occupation in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose and very strong oppose in the lede as it was. This is not only WP:UNDUE but also POV push. NPOV is a core policy and should be followed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You strongly oppose in violation of the policy you cite. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Are you of the opinion that Human Rights Watch present a minority view or their opinions are not significant? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly.. the views of the director (a single person) is a minority view. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Human rights watch being the source it is not a minority view. And the comments were based on the reportWith Friends Like These which is not a minority view at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the views are of a single person. Further the research of human rights watch should go to Kashmir conflict in a discussion covering all views about Indian and Pakistani Kashmir. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun, the directors speak on behalf of the entities, so this quote represents the position of Human Right Watch unless otherwise was specifically stated. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)]
 * I don't think a reliable source would have stated the director's name if it was a statement by the organization. Sources clearly name the organization itself in such cases. That would be synthesis. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure the source would name Human Right Watch if it wasn't Human Right Watch itself. When companies publish the statements on their sites, they don't normally include their own names in the references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case they state it as a fact, or attribute further sources. This is clearly attributed to director as a primary source. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The personal statements of the staff normally are not published on the corporate sites in the first place. If they do for some reason, the explicit disclaimers ("This article represents the personal view of John Doe, which may not reflect the position of Us, Inc.") are placed. Obviously, this article is on behalf of HRW. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree because of explicit naming the source. Disclaimers are just precedent. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The rules you cite are that of mass media and never are followed elsewhere. Human Right Watch is "international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy", which is quite different story. The difference is that mass media reports events of others, while organization inform of the activity of their staff when conducting their work on behalf of organization. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Human Right Watch enjoys the most standard source attribution ever existed: "said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in general and Oppose in the lede: the quotes are not appropriate summaries of articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, the metadata for the reference is wrong. It should be changed to:
 * The problem is that the author of the article is not stated (it is on behalf of the whole HRW instead); Brad Adams is only quoted, which doesn't allow to conclude his authorship. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose An unnecessary single-person view per TopGun, definitely not WP:DUE as far as the lead is concerned (where the sentence was originally placed by the editor inititating this RfC).  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support to include the quote in the article and also include as a summary in the lead -- D Big X ray  19:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More details also available at
 * Sorry, but how can a quote be a summary for encyclopedic article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The content from UNHCR and Brad Adams can be properly summarized and added in the lead section, which needs to have a summary of the aritcle.-- D Big X ray   20:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread your !vote as supportive of including the quote in the lede. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * RFC Comment: HRW is a reliable and frequently-cited organization, so their opinion on the human-rights situation is clearly pertinent to the article. That's point A, point B is whether the quote is the best way to convey HRW's view. In my opinion at least in the lead, the quote isn't the best way to write an encyclopedia and the start of the source provides better content, how about "According to Human Rights Watch, the Pakistani government represses freedoms, muzzles the press and practices torture in Azad Kashmir". This as such might not be in the lead but in the article body, however if other similar sources are found, then the lead might summarize them all by saying, e.g. "Human-rights groups have criticised the human-rights situation in the area". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Restore, with a summary in the lead, and the full quotation in the article body. (i suggest here: Azad_Kashmir) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cherry-picked quote, completely undue in the lead. As suggested above HRW's assessment about the region can be summarized in the article but not in the lead. -- S M S  Talk 21:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cherry-picked quote, completely undue in the lead. As suggested above HRW's assessment about the region can be summarized in the article but not in the lead. -- S M S  Talk 21:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is obviously include, yet TG has removed the content. TG please explain why. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the edit summary. There's no consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you on? The uninvolved editors who commented have all said include, there is an obvious consensus for this to be added to the article. 18:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is funny the way you always sum up consensus to be whatever you want to add. You need to read the guidlines in detail on how consensus is summarized and who does it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the comment directly below. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I would note: 8 editors responded; of them: Though I was involved in RFC, I would allow myself a conclusion: head count is in favor of quote in body and an appropriately weighted summary in the lede; coincidentally, this position adheres to WP:LEDE, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTCENSORED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 2 editors — TopGun and Mar4d — consider the quote undue in the article at all.
 * 5 editors — czarkoff (me), DBigXray, Dailycare, Anir1uph and Smsarmad — consider the quote only appropriate in the article's body with a summary of statements on topic in the lede.
 * Darkness Shines alone considers the quote appropriate in the lede.
 * Actually I do not care were it goes, I just think it ought to be in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented on your !vote as it was written. I don't even pretend to know your position beyond that. — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2012
122.167.68.52 (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You've to say what you want edited. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, in order to include the changes you propose we need the sources of the material you want added. See Verifiability and Neutral point of view policies for detailed information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)