Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2013–2014

Title
The title of the article is "Azad Kashmir".I am wondering why it is called Azad Kashmir.It is under control of Pakistani army and How many countries across the world called it so.Article might adhere neutral point but title is not appropriate.It should be "POK" or Pak controlled Kashmir. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would advise you to have a look at WP:POVNAMING. The gist of it is that article titles don't need to be neutral if one name is overwhelmingly favoured in English-language sources, which "Azad Kashmir" appears to be.  IgnorantArmies  11:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite this,i presume you know the meaning of Azaad as free while it is not free by any means.I do not understand why this word is used in English world.Whatever it is,Not a single indian(except traitors) and intellectuals around the world agree with this. ---zeeyanketu talk to me 22:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If another party names the People's Liberation Army as Peoples Occupation Army, it will not make it that because of the opposing party's point of view, and the Wikipedia article will not be renamed to People's Occupation Army... because that's not what they call themselves and it is not their administrative title. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir redirects to this article. So the users who only know that name, unlikely as that is, will still find this article. Knowing what Azad means, I have explained it to you but you are debating without even reading what user IgnorantArmies linked to you. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Azad means in this case its been liberated, its not Indian occupied anymore, what Pakistan does with it is irrelevant to the title, I don't recall Kashmir fighting for freedom from Pakistan, that they are not really free has nothing to do with the title either as again this means that its free from India. 175.110.250.59 (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverts?
The consensus in the RFC is quite clear and the closer was explicit in it, I quote. "There is consensus to have the quote in the article, but not in the lede. Consensus holds that an appropriately weighted summary in the lede is appropriate" Do not remove it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't we already had this debate... the appropriately weighed summary does not give any weight to this. See that is after a full stop. Does not specify inclusion of this. I wont editwar with you or even debate. The community will hopefully find the sensible version right. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus from the RFC is clear, both you and Mar4d are editing against consensus, any further reverts will be taken to ANI. I have bolded the bit from the RFC you two seem to be unable to read. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take my single revert to ANI. Create drama of which I will not be a part of. Appropriately weighed summary does not involve a quote from a single individual. That bolded statement only repeats what WP:LEDE says. -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Saw the note at ANI. I must admit some surprise at the outcome of the RfC but "appropriate weight" for an opinion can only be achieved by noting whose opinion that was. As such, the statement seems fine to me. RfC outcomes are not binding but the consensus seems clear enough and all involved here are familiar with the ARBIPA sanctions that can be imposed. This looks like the usual "defend Pakistan" reaction and I'd strongly advise the removers to drop it and follow more conventional methods. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The usual"? How are you helping... -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 11:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * TopGun, you have a history of this type of edit and it is because others do also that the sanctions regime was introduced. There is no point in sticking heads in sand. I do not for one minute deny that there are people on the other side of the problem but in this instance there was an RfC and there are at least some names in that who are unfamiliar to me in the context of this subject area, which is no bad thing. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of getting the clue from the link, go ahead and accuse me of a history where I accuse you back. That's good. Anyway, I made my point. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't accuse anyone of bad faith. The pro/anti thing is just a pretty standard reaction and I'm sure that those who adopt the positions usually do so because they genuinely believe them to be applicable. The problem is, there was an outcome at the RfC. - Sitush (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you see the RfC above, the consensus is that the quote does not need to be in the lead. Yet that is what is exactly happening in violation of the consensus. As far as the "summary" part goes, when I think of that word, I would imagine a sentence or two in the lead which explains the territory's status in the Kashmir dispute followed by human rights in the area in general. What is happening here is that we have this one little-known person named Brad Adams who's getting quoted in the lead of the article and being given too much WP:WEIGHT than is necessary. It misses the context and doesn't help add any meaning to the lead. We have the statement saying Azad Kashmir is "anything but free" which leaves us with more questions than actually a summary of human rights in the area. The statement is also placed in a very irrelevant and out-of-place manner in the lead.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather an attempt to conclude it with that the way it was put at the end. Lede is a summary of article, that's what consensus said. And then specifically said not to mention this quote. How many times do we have to bend over backwards to adjust misinterpretations. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is quote in the body, summary in the lede. That consensus has not changed. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As long as you're going to choose to misquote the consensus, you're not going to get anywhere with your argument.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And also, I believe there would be many counter-views to the opinion of Mr. Brad Adam. Can those counter-views be added alongside his opinion? This whole thing opens up a pandora box of its own.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus is what the article says. It changes when the article changes. It was that way since a year. It's called silent consensus. And even negating that, the other point stands. The doesn't say that the summary of the quote should be in the lede too. Just the summary as per WP:LEDE with no quote in lede. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (ecx3)I am not misquoting anything, you two are just lawyering up. The consensus is clear on the RFC, I will restore the content which was removed, further removals will be brought to AE. If you want it gone start an RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Moving on - can those who believe the sentence to be non-compliant with the RfC outcome please suggest an alternative. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something along the lines of "Although called free, there have been arguments that it is far from such and indeed tightly controlled". I realise that this is imperfect but could it be used as a basis for constructive discussion here? - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This whole issue is ridiculous. There is not the slightest reason to enter into any discussion linking the name of the place with a critical discussion of the state of civil liberties in Pakistan. If somebody out in the literature once did that it's still nothing but a polemic jibe (authors out there are of course welcome to use polemic jibes, but that's nothing to us.) Adding any such comment here is nothing but a cheap WP:COATRACK maneuvre. I am adamantly opposed to having any reference to that quotation anywhere at all. I also refuse to accept the RfC as a valid consensus for or against anything; its closure was rubbish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Its closure was not rubbish but that it ended up in the way it did surprises me. I certainly would have opposed anything in the lead had I known of it. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't convinced either but we cannot override an RfC at will. I have reverted back to the RfC-compliant version and suggested that those who disagree open a new one. Black Kite (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course we can override the RfC "at will". If Sitush also isn't convinced the quote should be used, that means the three of us are already a larger number of truly uninvolved editors in good standing than all of those who participated in the RfC. Note that the people who participated in it last year were almost all of them regular participants in the nationally entrenched POV "travelling circus" that is the India-Pakistan editing area. If you subtract the kneejerk "pro-Pakistan" and "anti-Pakistan" POV reactions from it, then the weight of what we have said here already outweighs the whole weight of the RfC by far. Consensus not only can change; it already has changed, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd much prefer no mention in the lead section. If there is a civil rights issue then that can be dealt with in the body but connecting the name to the concept is certainly little more than polemic based on an etymological serendipity. I am, of course, heavily involved in India-related articles and to a lesser extent in those relating to Pakistan but (a) I've never been blocked or even come close to it, although malcontents have repeatedly dragged me to the drama boards; and (b) I cannot recall being involved in the "travelling circus". - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A section on human rights abuses it is then, with a summary of those per WP:LEDE Darkness Shines (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Human rights sections do not go in province / state / country articles. Do you see one in Pakistan? Or say, Sindh? Not in the scope. They have independent articles. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is anything against it in policy/guidelines but I don't deal a lot with geographic stuff. What I do know is that nothing you say is likely to be persuasive, TopGun. I'd suggest another RfC is you want to see the stuff omitted entirely - you do have a huge historic POV on this subject matter. My gut feeling is that inclusion of a human rights section within the body would be fine provided that it did not become undue weight, at which point a content fork would be required. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If human rights is to be mentioned, it should probably be included as a sub-section of the politics/government section. An independent section on human rights is probably overdoing this, I agree with TopGun on that point.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what TopGun is saying - they want no mention. I agree, though, that it might not be a great idea to have a separate section. I'm ignorant on the subject matter so it is difficult for me to judge. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How about you come back when you have a better argument than accusing me of POV? Don't make it your routine to downplay arguments against you in the name of POV "history" instead of content related arguments because I'd say you have the history of same. I don't remember paying you to explain my views for me, I wrote a very concise explanation. I havn't seen such a section in general and don't see why this article in specific to have an undue highlighted section on human rights. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misread what I said and Mar4d's response to that. I have just reverted DS - sneaking something into the lead in that manner was predictable but I feel needs further discussion: it is evident that the issue does not have current consensus even if it might have done so a year back. - Sitush (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sneaking? So why this? Or is WP:LEDE going to be ignored? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was entirely predictable that you would add some content into the body and then cite WP:LEAD to justify inclusion of not dis-similar contested information in the lead section. Frankly, you've got as much pov on this as t'others. I've notified  and  that this issue is still live. I for one would appreciate further non-involved opinion and I'd ask all of the regulars - the so-called "travelling circus" - to hang off until some turns up. The world will not stop turning in the interval. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it was predictable, I wrote above that was going to do it. And the only POV I have is accuracy. I have made the same types of edits to a great many articles, and have created articles on human rights abuses on both sides of the border. I am going to remove what I added, and our readers can live in ignorance of the actual state of gevernance in AK, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, I will not revert you again if you reinstate that information. I just hope that you do not because I think that patience generally is wearing thin and it surely cannot be long before topic bans are being sprayed around per ARBIPA. - Sitush (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am reverting, just not to where you would assume. Here is a prediction, FPaS oppose anything I propose cos the guy hates me, I will even give you odds. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I was merely asking people to be patient, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I've no particular opinion regarding the Freedom House stuff in the body because, as said earlier, I'm not massively familiar with the scope of major geographical articles. It certainly could have been better phrased but that is a minor issue. I also neither know nor care about your relationship with FPaS: I've had disagreements with all sorts of people, including FPaS on this very talk page, but if it is all getting too much then it needs to be resolved someplace else. It's great that people want to achieve balance but the way that it tends to happen in this subject area is via the creation of massive amounts of drama. Sooner or later, the community is going to pull the curtain down on that and then everyone will lose out. - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, I have had enough of this crap from quite some time ago. I have been vilified by admins, I have been told that everything that is wrong in this topic area is my fault, I get abuse from both Pakistani and Indian editors, for no reason other then I stick to the fucking facts. I have various admins begging for me to be banned, FPaS being one of them, over a dispute from over a year ago. I will not bother anymore, our readers obviously know wiki is not even close to reliable, why ruin their expectations? I myself have been moving away from this shithole topic area, cos when you use the best sources here, you're a POV pushing asshole nationalist who needs to shown the door. Funny thing of course, I am not even from that neck of the woods, I just like history. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just about sticking to the "facts", it's also about WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, misrepresentation and in most cases, exaggeration of ground realities and facts. Some of the edits you make here have an agenda to them or a certain point to prove and ignore the points I've just mentioned, but anyway, let's not discuss that. Selectively picking a one-sided truth and presenting that as a sole unopposed, undisputed and accepted "fact" while ignoring the other side of the coin is obviously problematic and comes under what is called cherry-picking. Sadly, not just this, but several "bash-Pakistan" articles have this problem, Pakistan and state terrorism is another prime example. And it's not surprising that the editors who edit these articles almost always (99% of the time) tend to have some sort of connection to India or South Asia.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not misrepresented any sources than you very much. And I have no connections at all to either India or South Asia. If you believe I only showed one side of the coin the nshow the sources which disputes the content I had added. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's Wrong use of Wikipedia to say azad Kashmir to PoK — Preceding unsigned comment added by D naikwade (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014
It is requested to please add the name of sardar Ibrahim Khan Former President of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, in notable Kashmiri List.

Khan.anwaar (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Azad kashmir ???
I cant understand the title of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.127.1 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014
The map of Pakistan is Wrong.........

PurnimaKundu (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014
Please fix the comma splice and wrong use of "lay" in the intro. Remove it lays west of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir and add located west of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir

149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ - I've re-written rather more than that - hope you are now happy? If not, please come back- 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed 'Indian controlled' to 'Indian state' of J & K. The wording in the former version conveys a wrong message of 'controlled' could be wrongly perceived as 'disputed'. While it is well known that J & K is state in India, that is in every sense part and parcel of the whole country, like the other states.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014
Please fix the comma splice and wrong use of "lay" in the intro. Remove it lays west of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir and add located west of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir

149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ - I've re-written rather more than that - hope you are now happy? If not, please come back- 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed 'Indian controlled' to 'Indian state' of J & K. The wording in the former version conveys a wrong message of 'controlled' could be wrongly perceived as 'disputed'. While it is well known that J & K is state in India, that is in every sense part and parcel of the whole country, like the other states.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2014
Please fix the comma splice and wrong use of "lay" in the intro. Remove it lays west of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir and add located west of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir

149.160.173.187 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

✅ - I've re-written rather more than that - hope you are now happy? If not, please come back- 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Changed 'Indian controlled' to 'Indian state' of J & K. The wording in the former version conveys a wrong message of 'controlled' could be wrongly perceived as 'disputed'. While it is well known that J & K is state in India, that is in every sense part and parcel of the whole country, like the other states.

PoK as title or Anything related to disputed
Nobody denies that it is disputed area between pakistan and india but disputed should be used once or twice and not in all the lines of the article. User:Showmethedoor doesnt understand that it is accepted that it is disputed but it is mentioned in the start. So no need to put disputed in every other line. Words like occupied should be used in Jammu and Kashmir as weill as that is part of dispute too but i think user wants to add disputed to only pakistani articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We also had an RFC and settled it with both Indian and Pakistani editors as well as some more agreeing that the phrase "Indian / Pakistani Occupied" should not be used in GB, AJK and J&K articles. So hopefully Showmethedoor will understand that its a pandora's box if users start adding it back again... then it should be of equal weight in all three articles or in none to maintain neutrality. Keeping in none was the consensus, and consensus decides the fate of articles. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , we have to observe neutrality and can simply not add PoK as the title of this article. You should go through WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. Also see the established consensus on this matter that I showed in my above comment. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , I understand the neutrality part, but how can we have the title as Azad Kashmir when we've facts to backup per Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), per this document Jammu and Kashmir is part of India. If you've any other document to back the claim Jammu and Kashmir is a free state, we can retain Azad Kashmir, this is if you would like to remove Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Now, wrt Accession Day, I've merely added the fact and links from Wikipedia only, why we should remove it. -- <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>)


 * Legalities like that or points of view of India or Pakistan do not matter here on wikipedia. If Pakistan claims J&K to be IoK, it would not be neutral to rename J&K article to IoK. Same applies to this article (no matter what points of view are held between the two countries). See how articles are named on wikipedia at WP:COMMONNAME. It is titled AJK because that is its administrative name being used by the entity actually controlling it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , there are teritories in the world claimed by individuals or group, for example in Sri Lanka Tamils for so many decades. So, it can't be said that the administrative name is used here in same sense. So, either it can be mentioned as PoK as it is occupied by Pakistan after the Accession or just Jammu and Kashmir administered by Pakistan, but the title as Azad Kashmir doesn't have any fact to backup either by you or anyone other than the factual document Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) signed by Maharajah Hari Singh. As per this document Jammu and Kashmir is part of India and is named as Jammu and Kashmir. Now, wrt Accession Day, let's agree to include the Accession Day specific information and references I've added. -- <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this RFC and the points presented might help you understand. An example of this is People's Liberation Army. Some one might say they are an occupying force in the mainland China, that doesn't change the fact that they this is what they call themselves and are known administratively. The accession part is already covered in the history section on similar lines as you added. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , it is farcical to quote China as an example here, they're not even Democratic and can't be even compared with a Democratic country like Pakistan. Hence, doesn't have any fact to back up it's a Free independent country or state to be titled as Azad Kashmir. I don't think you or other don't have any factual document to backup other than the document Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) signed by Maharajah Hari Singh, as per your reference Wikipedia rule to back things with Facts and Document references. As per this document Jammu and Kashmir is part of India and is named as Jammu and Kashmir, hence this page can be just mentioned as Kashmir. Now, wrt Accession Day, let's include the Accession Day specific information and references I've added in the Introduction section, apart from History section. -- <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is farcical to change the facts or the name of the article on the basis of the Instrument of Accession because that document is only India's point of view. Pakistan rejects the legality of the Instrument and regards it as fraudulent. Likewise, the international view (UN) does not declare the Instrument of Accession as binding, instead the international viewpoint is to conduct a referendum in Kashmir and let the Kashmiri people decide their fate. That contradicts the Indian position. And one of the core WP:NPOV policies of Wikipedia is that one point of view, particularly a minority one, cannot be given preference over another. So the Indian position on Kashmir can't be presented in this article as a fact simply because it is just the Indian POV, not the neutral one.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Democracy has nothing to do with neutrality on wikipedia. Infact it is just another point of view. So by your point of view, would you change People's Liberation Army to People's Occupation Army if some one signed a paper saying that? That would be a funny thing to do for an encyclopedia. You do remember you are editing an encyclopedia, you can try editing wikinews if you are interested in something that rather relates to one time events. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually if you turn the tables and use Jinishan's logic, Jammu and Kashmir's title should be changed to "Indian-administered Kashmir" or "Indian-occupied Kashmir". Since that is how it is referred to by Pakistan or international sources.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's why we had that RFC in the first place... either to follow the logic everywhere or not to do it at all.. and the consensus was to keep it simple and not use POV titles everywhere in the lede. And what Jinishans proposes is a step more blatent (to change the article titles and not just the lede) on top of that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * TopGun and Mad4d, If I go by your logic, we shouldn't have Indian occupied kashmir in Jammu and Kashmir page, but it's mentioned there. My question is why not we have it here as well under Azad Kashmir stated as Pakistan occupied kashmir ? Also, it is a fact that Azad Kashmir is a disputed land, why not include the fact about Instrument of Accession and Accession Day links be provided in the initial paragraph. Why you both are trying to put your Point of View.<b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b>Jinishans (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's what we are trying to tell you (for the usage of the word 'occupied').
 * Calling territories in each other's control 'occupied' may belong to the Kashmir conflict article but having to explain this everywhere, in all related articles is a nightmare. Read the history section of this article. Accession article is already refered there. See WP:LEAD. The lede is just a summary of the region and territory covering everything related to it in general, the history section adequately covers what you want to say. We enforce a neutral point of view here. I'm not the one asking to add "Indian-occupied Kashmir" as a title of the article. There are atleast 4 editors in these recent edits that are giving enough reasons why not to include the word 'occupied' and this further strengthens the previous RFC consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly that is what trying I'm trying to explain you both. When it was mentioned as Pakistan occupied Kashmir in Jammu and Kashmir page itself, which is not actually Pakistan occupied Kashmir, it's not mentioned in the introduction paragraph of Azad Kashmir, it doesn't make sense as that is what actually referred as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. So, when a person comes to Azad Kashmir page, in the introduction itself it should be clearly mentioned as mentioned in Jammu and Kashmir page, so that people come for information it'll be helpful to know Azad Kashmir is called as Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Hence, my question is why not we can have it here as well under Azad Kashmir stated as Pakistan occupied kashmir ? As you're all experienced and senior folks, you should easily understand the logic. People come to Wikipedia for information, and in Azad Kashmir page it's not mentioned in the initial sections this piece of land is called Pakistan occupied Kashmir, which is not true in Jammu and Kashmir page. If you want, we can mention whatever is called in Pakistan can also be added to come to consensus. Also, we love azad kashmir and jamo kashmir it is a fact that Azad Kashmir is a disputed land, why not include the fact about Instrument of Accession and Accession Day links be provided in the initial paragraph instead of History. I understand it's mentioned in History section, but it's nothing wrong to just have a reference about atleast Instrument of Accession, not to have Accession Day in the initial paragrh as a compromise. --- <b style="color:#FF9933">jinishans</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) ::::Jinishans (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If something wrong is being done in another article, it doesn't make it right to do it in this one too. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * TopGun, you're not ready to discuss or consider the points I've raised. Instead of responding objectively you're trying to just repeat the same message. Please answer my question objectively. If someone search for Crimea it should simply point to Crimea page in Wikipedia. Same concept applies here. If someone want to see about Pakistan occupied Kashmir, it's showing Azad kashmir in search engine as well. But, when we come to the respective page in Wikipedia, i.e. Azad Kashmir, it doesn't have anything about Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Wikipedia is for providing information for people, not your or my or a small pool of people living in Pakistan occupied Kashmir i.e. Azad Kashmir, who even don't have internet and may not even search for Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Please answer my questions objectively, not just keep on repeating the same what you'll responded already. User:jinishans<b style="color: (User talk:jinishans<b style="color:) Jinishans (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Kashmir conflict is already mentioned in the lead, have you not read the second paragraph of the opening: "Azad Kashmir is part of the greater Kashmir region, which is the subject of a long-running conflict between India and Pakistan. The territory shares a border with Gilgit–Baltistan, together with which it is referred to by the United Nations and other international organizations as "Pakistan-controlled" or "Pakistan-administered Kashmir"."  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't mind mentioning that it's called Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (and the PoK abbreviation) in India, just not to the extent of replacing all mentions of Azad Kashmir with PoK, as Jinishans' original edits did. Maybe like this: '…referred to by the United Nations and other international organizations as "Pakistan-controlled" or "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", or in India as "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" (PoK). ' (added text underlined)? The usage does seem to be common enough to mention, as in this recent article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  11:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I Appreciate coming to some sort of consensus. Let's have the sentence in the first paragraph of Azad Kashmir first to include the term 'it's called Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (and the PoK abbreviation) in India', the opposite of it is mentioned already in Jammu and Kashmir page, not just administered or controller, we need to have the word 'occupied'. It's a deliberate attempt, in fact cynical attempt by few Wikipedia users to remove the word 'occupied' in entire Azad Kashmir page, which doesn't do justice to either Wikipedia or it's users. Also, we need to include the link and article, which  agreed above. - <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

IgnorantArmies, have you read this? I was originally in favour of including it too as a blanket consensus in the three main articles about the territories. If you want to change that consensus, and go for including in all I wont mind that either per se. But it's moot discussion as it will have same effect with editors then trying to remove them from selective articles. So just including will not kill the debate if that was your intent; any new editor who edits in the area first of all makes it a mission to do this and we get this every now and then until they really learn about WP:NPOV. Kashmir dispute articles cover this in much detail and include individual incidents. @Jinishans, I have been trying to reply to all of your concerns even though you are bent on just sticking to the same arguement that instrument of accession gives you the right to rename that article on wikipedia. It does not. People coming to wikipedia searching for PoK is a different story all together. They will be redirected here and this article clearly mentions in neutral terms that it is controlled by Pakistan. If they further choose to read the dispute / war articles, they will also find out that both countries have so and so claims. The information you want to contribute is not bad, it's not just neutral. So I'm telling you the best way to do it. Add it to the conflict article in as much detail as you like fully explain the Indian point of views there (ofcourse labeled as Indian claims) and it will be linked here as per due weight (and already does as well in the history section as it is ofcourse the history of Azad Kashmir, as a state as well - and yes that's the name of the state not a claim by wikipedia that it is free as the article states it 'literally' means free). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If somebody searches for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir", Wikipedia redirects them to Azad Kashmir. So, I don't see a problem. The Azad Kashmir page has to mainly cover the situation inside it.  If the people there call their state "Azad Kashmir", that is what Wikipedia should do.  Wikipedia is a source of information.  It is not a battleground for politics.  Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, ,  - It might be your POV, but just mere redirection to Azad Kashmir doesn't do justice to the user who's trying to find information on a term called Pakistan occupied Kashmir either within Wikipedia or Google or other search engines. In fact, I'm not a serious Wikipedia editor, but a strong user of Wikipedia since it's beginning stages. To give a background ,  ,  and other, when I searched one day about shelling of Indian Army in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, I wanted to know more about POK, that's when I went to Google search engine from USA and searched the term Pakistan occupied Kashmir, then boom, this page called Azad Kashmir came up, which I never heard of till date. I'm almost 30, strong follower of Indian, Pakistan, US and Geo-Politics since I went to 7/8th grade, I never heard this term called Azad Kashmir. When I went to this Wikipedia page Azad Kashmir, I couldn't see a term called Pakistan occupied Kashmir in the entire Azad Kashmir wikipedia page, which is a strong disguise to the page supposed to provide information about POK or Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in this page. As a simple Wikipedia user, when I search for Ukraine, I need to see the word Ukraine, whatever views Russia has about Ukraine, when I search for Palestine I need to see the word called Palestine in the respective Palestine Wikipedia page. I can't see something like 'Israel' or a different name when i searched a term called Palestine talks about Palestine. We can't buy a ticket for Singapore Airport and land there to see it's mentioned as something else, it needs to clearly show as Singapore Airport. It's simple it is. My request as a simple long time Wikipedia user is, I need to see Pakistan Occupied Kashmir word, atleast in the bracket something like 'Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)' in Title and in the 1st paragraph about 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK)'. Let's put aside all our differences, POVs, it's a simple Wikipedia user request for a page to depict what it is.  User:jinishans<b style="color: (User talk:jinishans<b style="color:) Jinishans (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To answer your one concern when I searched one day about shelling of Indian Army, wikipedia is not a news website. It is an encyclopedia. You should check out wikipedia's sister project wikinews for searches (or editing) news content. On a related note, if you had not heard of the term "Azad Kashmir" and yet knew about PoK, it's not wikipedia you should be worried about. The article links and refers to Kashmir conflict per WP:DUE which then fully explains the conflict. This article is about the state itself. Not Indian and Pakistani claims about it. See some of the other well maintained state and province articles as a reference. For your main concern about the mention of occupation / control / capture after the 1947 war this article mention the word occupied / occupation. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read it thoroughly what i mentioned above. Either you're not spending enough time to understand or trying to impose your POV on me and on Wikipedia and trying to convey what you feel is right. I can't handle anymore with you. I clearly said, I searched for a term 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir' and came to Azad Kashmir, whether it doesn't have any mention of the same. Also, you can't preach other what Wikipedia is meant for. I can clearly make out you want to take an approach of keep repeating the same in different forms, rather than coming to a consensus on a issue to impose your POV or make the opponent go silent after trying several times. Users coming to Wikipedia for information about a country, term, person, history, product, and hence it's called Internet Encyclopedia. No one is saying here that I came for reading NEWS nor about Kashmir conflict. It's a fact it's called Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK) in India, which needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph and also you can mention Indian occupied Kashmir if required in the same 1st paragraph. If you don't want to come to any consensus, it's not my issue, and as you preached me, it's against Wikipedia rules as well, means you're trying to impose your POV. I appreciate if you come to some sort of consensus. Read also the response I gave to above and let's all come to conclusion on this. - <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * allow me to rant a bit first. One fine day Bombay decides to rename itself "Mumbai".  Thousands of newspapers, databases and computer programs all over the world were changed overnight to accommodate Bombay-wallahs' (sorry, Mumbaikars') wishes.  Civilized people respect people's wishes to name themselves, however childish such wishes might be.  But, Indian government doesn't respect the Azad Kashmiris' wish to name themselves.  So, if you never heard of "Azad Kashmir" before, well, blame your Indian Government first!
 * Having said that, in the the interest of our readers, I wouldn't mind if the Azad Kashmir page mentions that the Indian Government and Indian media call it "Pakistan occupied Kashmir". Mind you that that term applies to both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan jointly.  Nobody knows whether it also covers the territory ceded by Pakistan to China. However, if Azad Kashmiris object to that, as a Wikipedian, I will want to respect their wishes. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't have to rant, It's a simple logical question I was raising. To go by your logic as well, when I search for Mumbai or Bombay, it redirects to that page, may be it's not mentioned in the Title as "Mumbai (Bombay)" which is what I was asking for Azad Kashmir {Pakistan occupied Kashmir}, but the page Mumbai shows below a statement as ("Bombay" redirects here. For other uses, see Bombay (disambiguation)). I can pose a question as per your logic, why don't we show as ("Pakistan occupied Kashmir" redirects here. For other uses, see Pakistan occupied Kashmir (disambiguation)) below the title. In which case, it makes sense and we can leave the title as is Azad Kashmir.
 * Having said that, I appreciate your interest of millions of Wikipedia users like me, for whom Wikipedia is for, not just people in that land, let's mention what you've agreed and agreed above the fact that it's called 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir' in India and by International Media.
 * Make no mistake, Wikipedia is not one persons asset nor it's an asset of one country nor people of a particlar land can claim that page, it's open source and Internet Encyclopedia for people and users all over the world about a place, land, person, product, etc. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree that it is a "logical question". Logic can see clearly that "Pakistan occupied" is an offensive and politically loaded term. (And this bit is different from the Bombay/Mumbai analogy.  Please don't ignore that.)  Azad Kashmiris don't agree that they were "occupied" by Pakistan.  It is only the Indian Government that insists on using the term, and forces all Indians to use it.  International sources don't use such offensive terminology.  Please don't distort what  said.  You can read again, more carefully, what he wrote.  Wikipedia can't be tailored to what the Indian readers want to satisfy their POV.  For that, they will need to go and develop their own Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Topgun (and others), I think there is a kernel of a legitimate issue amid all this chaff; namely, if "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" redirects to this page, then this page should carry an explanation of the term at some point. See WP:R. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can vote on this proposal from, which is to use the description: referred to by the United Nations and other international organizations as "Pakistan-controlled" or "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", or in India as "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" (PoK) . (added text underlined)
 * Support as per the above discussion Kautilya3 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If consensus forms around this, I am fine with it; if people want to water it down further, and mention it lower down the lead, that is fine with me, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion (diff)
 * , are you also willing to add IoK & PoK to all articles that relate to Kashmir as per similar grounds? It will open a Pandora's box. If you read my last comment, the mention of capture / occupation with respect to the war itself is already covered. Now adding "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" would be agreeing to WP:IDONTLIKEIT by Jinishans and adding Indian POV in it because the fact that the redirection of PoK here to the title Azad Kashmir is well explained in the article. As says on the top when another user started this editwar, there's no need of adding 'occupied' in every line of the article if it's said in one place. WP:R is already satisfied. Also, WP:R can not reasonably cover all variations of the term; PoK, Pakistan occupied Kashmir, Pakistan controlled Kashmir all can't be mentioned in bold on the first line, however the article does adequately considers it later in the body: Following the 1949 cease-fire agreement, the government of Pakistan divided the northern and western parts of Kashmir that it occupied at the time of cease-fire into the following two separately-controlled political entities. First PoK will be added here, then IoK to J&K, then some one will come along and say let's add IoK here and PoK at J&K as well (believe me it has already happened). After painful long debates we finally removed such POV titles from both sides. Now you want to do it all over again; the issue here is not the content itself as all editors here have agreed above on the neutrality and clarity. I'll also note that Jinishans has been busy canvassing  . -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am asking for a vote only on the specific proposal from, which I have highlihted above. No other changes to any other pages are under discussion.  By the way, IoK is already a redirect for J&K and that page already explains the IoK term.  As I have said earlier, I regard both PoK and IoK to be offensive terms and I would never support using them in Wikipedia voice.  We are only mentioning that the two countries use them against each other.  The reason for doing this has been coherently explained by  above.  When a redirect lands on a page, that page needs to contain that term.  (By the way, Vanamonde is an honourable Wikipedian and you would notice that he didn't vote on this issue because he has been canvassed.) Kautilya3 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate that Vanamode avoided bending the discussion, my comment was not on him rather on the actions of Jinishans that relate to this discussion as canvassing always puts in some weight in consensus that wasn't naturally coming to a party. Putting that and WP:NOTVOTE aside, the text in green mentions the terminology of occupation. It does not have to be covered in that exact term, although it almost still does, or the exact terms of redirects are numerous. I'm not in favour of adding IoK or PoK either. If you think the mention of occupation as I highlighted in green is not appropriate and needs to say something like "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as referred by India", I'm fine by it. But we put administered, occupied, PoK, and tens of other variations in lede, it's not really going to make sense of anything in capacity of a — well, lede. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of "occupied" in the green sentence is not factually correct, because Gilgit acceeded to Pakistan on its own and AJK declared independence from the Maharaja on its own, even before Pakistan got involved. So Pakistan didn't "occupy" anything.  Likewise, calling J&K "Indian occupied" is also factually incorrect because both the Maharaja and Sheikh Abdullah, as the leading political leader of the Valley, acceeded to India.  The term "occupation" is used by both the countries as part of their propaganda wars.  So, let us put it in their voices and be done with it.  The green sentence is too far down in the article to explain why the PoK redirect lands here.  (By the way, Jinishans is telling the truth when he says that he was confused why he ended up on this page.  The ignorance in India about AJK is nearly universal.  I have even spoken to Indian Foreign Service officers -- supposedly experts on foreign policy -- who didn't know what AJK was.  It is our job on Wikipedia to educate them!)  Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand what the dispute is... the second paragraph of the article lead already mentions the terms Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir etc.. So what changes are exactly being proposed? @Jinishans: I'm almost 30, strong follower of Indian, Pakistan, US and Geo-Politics since I went to 7/8th grade, I never heard this term called Azad Kashmir. When I went to this Wikipedia page Azad Kashmir, I couldn't see a term called Pakistan occupied Kashmir in the entire Azad Kashmir wikipedia page, which is a strong disguise to the page supposed to provide information about POK or Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in this page. Well to put it bluntly mate, that's because you've been knowing it by the wrong name your whole life. Azad Kashmir has been officially named as Azad Kashmir since 1947. It is only in India where the term Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is used, similar to how Jammu and Kashmir is called Indian-occupied Kashmir in Pakistan. Wikipedia is neutral and can't serve a particular POV, because if that were to happen, the title of Jammu and Kashmir is supposed to be Indian-occupied Kashmir as per your wishes.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, the concern I am raising (which is rather different from what Jinishans is raising, is that per WP:R, the specific term "Pakistan occupied Kashmir'' needs to be covered. I understand that what is currently used is perhaps analogous, and certainly more neutral; but PoK redirects here, bringing the guideline into play. TopGun, the post on my talk was indeed problematic; but as a matter of interest, this page has been on my watchlist for a while. I am not actually sure which of my actions led Jinishans to post on my page, but I DO know that when they were still edit-warring, I reverted them once, and ended up edit-conflicting with you. I am not on their "side" in any sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did assume good faith on your part, which is why I have not scrutinized your own actions. About the concern you are raising as different from Jinishans, the lede says Pakistan administered and Pakistan controlled. These terms are quite clear to clarify that. Now my question went unanswered, Kautilya3, that is it really sensible to list everything that redirects to the article as a "term" when they are explained otherwise? Because that way PoK and Pakistan occupied Kashmir are again two terms. There would be many other terms or descriptives India uses as well for the region. As far as it is explained that it is disputed as such and it is in Pakistani control in the voice of wikipedia, repeatedly mentioning each term with attribution to who uses it makes wikipedia give undue weight plus it is redundant explanation of the same. The article will eventually read as POV overly explaning terminology of a one sided view (and it would logically need to be balanced with similar attribution of what Pakistan uses for the counter part - hence my comment before). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the the policy WP:R recommends that every term used as a redirect to a page should be mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs, preferably in bold. (I don't think we need to put it in bold, but I think it should be mentioned, just the same way as "Indian occupied Kashmir" is mentioned on the J&K page.)  Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt that is what R#PLA was meant for; it is infact meant for the principle of least astonishment. That is, if some one searches and reaches a different article it should be selfexplanatory from the lede as to why he got here. Now as R#PLA gives an example itself that if "Density of water redirects to Properties of water" there's no need to have it in the lede as it is the same thing and should be understood by anyone adhering to logic and basic English. Same logic applies here. If the article already mentions another two redirects of controlled and administered, there is no need to also include a third, forth and so on terms also in the lede. R#PLA is only meant for reader's expectation which is well satisfied by the use of "control" and "administered" (which are infact neutral variants of occupied). Jinishans even wants to remove "Indian administered Kashmir" from the J&K article not just against WP:SOURCEACCESS but also claiming that no one calls it so and yet wants to add PoK here which is a whole different story and a level up on the POV. He is obviously seeing everything through a narrow vision of Indian perspective and is not even considering the world perspective. It becomes obvious when some one tries to find just any pretext of adding their desired edit (it might or might not be intentional but Jinishans needs to understand how wikipedia works). Hopefully being experienced, you'll get that I'm not here to block any other version from getting into the article rather trying to keep out redundancy and POV on random pretext such as Jinishans introduced which was then linked to a policy by Vanamonde93 in good faith... esp now that I have explained that WP:R is not being violated in the article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if wanted to remove the neutral term "Indian-administered Kashmir", he would have been wrong about that.  However, if the "PoK" description is not accepted on this page, he would be well-justified in removing the "IoK" label from the J&K page.  We can have either both or none. I have already said that both the terms are equally offensive.  So, I woudln't object if the "IoK" label is removed as well.  Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's my stance from the beginning and in that I totally agree with you that such terms are not for wikipedia to use unless talking about the term itself and that too is done with care of WP:WEIGHT of attributing all perspectives. To stick to administered and controlled is neutral (if some one sees those terms they are expected to understand why occupied is a redirect). If that was to be done in the body, it's not really a problem... or use occupied when it is actually being referred to as that (with attribution) in context of a statement from that party. Use in both articles or use in none are our two options. The latter seems to kill the debate which is why I back it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with above, "occupied" is just a loaded term sometimes used to signify a country's supposed occupation over territory claimed by the other. Going with "administered" and "controlled" is self-explanatory, and these latter two are also the most widely used. United Nations documents for example neutrally refer to the regions as Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We've got the Kashmir conflict article to go into greater detail on occupied or not occupied. There's a sentence in the second paragraph already pointing out that the territory is the subject of a dispute, so the lead here should stay concise.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what Wikipedia Rule should be applicable to you, you can tell me, but I strongly feel you're an proponent of removing 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' word in every article in Wikipedia related to Pakistan or on the J&K issue, which is a POV again. I can see you're targeting articles and users who try to add this term wrt J&K issue in whatever page it may be. You're fighting tooth and nail and trying to pull support offline i feel from other like minded people supporting your POV and opposing to just a word Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in Azad Kashmir first paragraph with me for the last 1 month. In that regard, you've blamed me Edit War though I've just edited or reverted 2-3 times (as I'm a newbie to Edit in Wikipedia) and blamed me of having multiple user, which isn't true. Wikipedia is for providing information to the world on a topic, not what you/me feel or think is right. Why not just have this term 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' is mentioned in these few relevant articles and move on. Just think about it. We already have few consensus from few here that we should have Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as it's been re-directed in Google, Yahoo, Bing search engines, even within Wikipeida as well. Above all, we've the Instrument of Ascension by Raja Hari Singh as well given to India to be part of India, and we know the history.
 * Same is applicable to your stand, keep repeating the same without considering the point what the other person is trying to tell you. Knowing from your profile that you're from Pakistan's extreme right wing Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, it's no wonder you don't want to have the term 'occupied' come in the way of J&K in any form or other.
 * To answer your question, I never ever told we shouldn't have a term or mention of 'Indian occupied Kashmir' in any of the J&K related page, but it should be there in both Azad Kashmir page as well.
 * Looks like you've understood my point and as well to some extent, but I clarified to him my point again above. Also, the reason I posted in your page is because I'm new to Edit in Wikipedia, TopGun is helping me a lot, still trying to insist his POV especially on this point related to adding the term 'occupied' in any of the J&K related articles. Since you've posted something related to POK in this Talk page, I thought I can ask a 3rd party to come and provide their view.
 * I also understand we don't or can't change the title of Azad Kashmir, but when it redirects it should show as it's shown when searched for Mumbai / Bombay (as an example provided by TopGun).
 * The point we're discussing is entirely different, it's not about what we all think, what India or Pakistan Govt thinks, what J&K thinks, it's about technicality and more about how it's called in respective countries. We can and should have both terms Pakistan Occupied Kashmir or POK and Pakistan administered Kashmir, also Indian administered Kashmir and India occupied Kashmir or IOK in both Azad Kashmir page and Jammu and Kashmir page (which it already has), as that's the term used in Pakistan or in India, which comprises of 1/6th of World population each. Let the governments fight each other, let our independent views be ASIS, it's not going to change anything in real terms. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I promote WP:NPOV. Which is why, in the first place, I do not want to use biased terms like occupied which are points of view of one side. For editwar, yes, you should not revert it in when you know that a clear consensus on adding it is not formed first on the talk page. It will get you blocked (if not now eventually it will). We work here by consensus. Secondly, do not talk about editors, don't question motives. Talk page is to be used to discuss content. It will really not help your case if you keep pointing out political affiliations of people because it does not matter even if an editor has POV as far as he does not put it into articles. With that said, I have abundantly answered your point about the use of terminology and I will do it again as a courtesy, it is entirely undue to discuss a single term about a conflict in the lede of a topic which is about the administrative state and not about conflict. You can add terminologies from all sides, even China at Kashmir conflict article as far as they are balanced; and I will even support adding them there. Imagine going to Islamabad article with half of the lede explaining how Bengalis thought the city was being developed with their money; it's something I find akin to what you are saying here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 04:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I feel your edit yesterday was more neutral point of view, but I expected TopGun or others from Pakistan POV would remove the word 'occupied' from the page. It did happen within few hours. Now, you can understand and realize who's forcing the POV in this Azad Kashmir page. At any point in time, Occupied word should not be there is the POV of TopGun, Mad4r, and others from Pakistani Editers. I'm not sure how to solve this, as they're not going to agree on this. But, this vindicates my point that the word 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir' should be there in this page and those opposing are opposing for insisting their POV.
 * I understand I did a revert, but Vanamonde93 has changed it back with a neutral POV, why don't you agree for that. So, you want to go your way or no way ? This is bad, and it's really insisting your POV. You should revert it back to the Vanamonde93 wording, which is more neutral POV. Also, why is that Edit War applicable only to me, TopGun, you're also reverting and edited and removed 'occupied' with clear reference that it's been called as 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in India' which is a Neutral POV, what Vanamonde93 has added yesterday. This is not considered as Edit War ? A different Rule for you and for me ? Why don't you wait before removing or reverting what Vanamonde93 has edited ? Why is the Double-standard ? No one to Question you, cos you're a senior editor ? I strongly suspect that, you're building a case to block me, as I'm putting forward few genuine reasons to have the word 'occupied' in this page. I telling you now, I'm going to stick to my stand what may come for any no. of years, this word should be there in Azad Kashmir page, as you're trying to malign a new User, and I strongly feel you're trying to threaten and might malign every new user in such a way, at one point, they'll leave this page and you'll win. If this is the way you're going to win, it's bad for Wikipedia and it's users like me as we're coming to wikipedia since I'm in 10th grade thinking it's Internet's Encyclopedia, not to learn your POV or Pakistan POV. No one can force the Internet or the Wikipedia. I"m going to put a full stop on this once and for all. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b>Jinishans (talk) 07:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see, the discussion here is deadlocked. Your best bet is to file for dispute resolution on DRN.  Once you do it, please post a note here pinging all the involved editors so that they can take part in any discussion there. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My position here is rather simple; there is a guideline to be followed, and the current version does not follow it. Where the term PoK is explained I am not particular; but explained it must be. I saw my insertion as a neutral one; if people disagree, then the onus is on you to explain how the guideline may be followed without it. And before people go off half-cocked and accuse me of POV, I would support adding the analogous term to J&K. TG, terminology in china is irrelevant, because so far as I can see, it does not redirect to this page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit you made is neutral, but the term "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" used by the Indian Government is not. The neutral terms used by international bodies like "Pakistan administered Kashmir" or "Pakistan controlled Kashmir" are mentioned in the lead. Please don't tell me that the Indians are such dimwits that they can't relate their Government's POV terminology with the neutral international terminology.

If the Indian Government and the Indians in general have the sanity to look into facts, they will realize that Pakistan didn't "occupy" Kashmir, rather it helped Azad Kashmiris liberate themselves. The facts are that Poonchi Muslims revolted due to the Maharaja's oppression way back in the summer of 1947 and the Maharaja's forces started killing Muslims indiscriminately in association with the local RSS and Jammu Praja Parishad. Actually, it might not have been "indiscriminate". There are reports that it was deliberately designed to turn Jammu division into a Hindu majority province. An estimated 200,000 Muslims were killed in the Jammu division, and another 300,000 Muslims displaced, the largest known instance of ethnic cleansing in Indian history. The displaced Muslims became refugees in the western districts of Poonch and West Punjab. These people along with Poonchi Muslims established a provisional 'Azad Kashmir' government in Rawalpindi on 3 October, 1947 and then, with the help of the raiders from NWFP, set up base in Palindri on the 24 October. This is 'Azad Kashmir'. To call it Pakistan "occupied" Kashmir is heresy. See the Christopher Snedden page and the citations given there, especially the Shubh Mathur article. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oi, take it easy. I'm well aware of Kashmiri history, and the fact that both national governments put out propaganda about the territory currently in the hands of the other. I was merely pointing to the content guideline, and I stick to that argument; if a person typed "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" into the search box, it is as likely that they wish to know about the term as about the territory. Currently, the page does not ever mention the term, and that is a problem. I have no strong feelings over how we address this issue; we could mention the term in the lead, we could mention it in the body; or we could instead redirect the term to Kashmir conflict; or even delete the redirect; or add a hatnote. I implemented the second of those options; if people disagree with it, fine, but you should provide an alternative, shouldn't you?, how would you feel about shifting the redirect? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, then, you are better informed than I am. I had only seen vague references to the Jammu violence in all the books I read over the years.  But the scale and impact of it has only become clear to me after running into Christopher Snedden's book.
 * As for the "solution" you are after, we could redirect POK to Kashmir (disambiguation), and there we can mention the term. That is actually better because "POK" includes both AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan, a subtlety that is presently lost. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That actually makes more sense than my suggestion; we could redirect IoK there as well. What do the rest of you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NPOV wise, redirecting doesn't create any POV on what you said.. but it does not make sense either (for a person who "knows" PoK = AJK). I think it will break all dab rules by redirecting a well known alternate name to a dab. Any one searching for these terminologies should come to the right article atleast (ie. to cater for an apparently lesser problem of not having the exact term there we are creating a bigger problem of not even leading to the article required). If some one is not aware about the conflict... well if they are not even aware about the conflict, they wouldn't be complaining about PoK now, would they? On the other hand, to redirect to a dab, it needs to be a term that has multiple meanings. PoK does not have multiple meanings and including two territories is not a dab, it is a simple name. A dab is the same name for two terms (see discussion linked) as per WP:DABCONCEPT... Infact, before the 70s, it was all Azad Kashmir and then Pakistan divided it into the two territories (which India objected ofcourse). So even the prior name of two combined territories is Azad Kashmir by the same logic that this article is named Azad Kashmir; cutting out GB from AJK was a political tactic by Pakistan to take about half the territory out of the equation and refactor the Kashmir conflict. Although India keeps the same old claim, inside Pakistan, it worked well due to ethnic difference between the two and GB doesn't want to be together with AJK again. That information is given due weight in appropriate sections of GB and AJK articles as done in any other case. Something I said in the start of this debate, that all this has been done and in the end we found this to be the best redirect, and to better remove such terminologies; a conclusion we will likely reach again wasting all our time in the end that could have been used in creating new content. So that's technically misleading to do. For redirecting it to Kashmir conflict, PoK / IoK are a part of the conflict, yes, but they are the given names to the states not the conflict... and that would be giving preference to the Pakistani view of totally removing the PoK redirect from here. In short, this will create unnecessary mess that we don't even have at the moment. Ofcourse Kautilya3 gave a goodfaith suggestion but he might have missed this fact and the prior discussions (which I was involved in and hence all the fuss). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made Pakistan-occupied Kashmir into a disambiguation page without impinging on any other pages. Hope this meets with everybody's aproval. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mercury (planet) and Mercury (car) are a disambiguation because the word has one-to-many relationship as required by WP:DABCONCEPT. Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are not because there's no ambiguity on "what is PoK" and no confusion in the name being used for both (it is used by India for both as a whole ie. pre-70s Azad Kashmir which is a clear definition). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I fail to see the issue.
 * I have been saying since 30 October that PoK refers to both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, and you didn't counter it in any way. You say that it is pre-70s Azad Kashmir.  I don't know about that, but we don't have a page on pre-70s Azad Kashmir.  So, that seems to be a spurious argument.
 * WP:DABCONCEPT is a guideline, not a policy. Even if it were a policy, remember that there are "no firm rules" on Wikipedia.  Every rule has to be adopted to the context, by understanding the spirit of the policy.  Notice that we have a Kashmir (disambiguation) page which is not of your "Mercury" variety.  So I don't see any merit in this argument.
 * If you are actually interested in respecting policies, then you should be responding to the policy violation pointed out by . You haven't produced any solution except to counter every solution that has been suggested.  If the POK page has to be a plain redirect in the way you have reinstalled it, then the term has to be mentioned on the Azad Kashmir page.  You said that you are not favour of that.
 * It looks like we need to go to WP:DRN as we have done in the past.
 * Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid I have to agree with Kautilya here. There is a very clear problem; the current version does not follow the guideline. We have suggested multiple solutions to the issue; you have disagreed with them all, without providing an alternative. Please do so. Or are you suggesting that we ignore the guideline? Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3, I did give counter arguments to your suggestion right above that PoK does not refer to them both, rather to them both as a whole. However, you ignored it and went on to create a dab by yourself. So don't say I didn't tell you. There is no policy violation and I responded to Vanamonde93's claim that the term is being clarified with the usage of 'administered' and 'controlled' and then further in the body as well as in the linked Kashmir dispute article. You can read that in this discussion again if you like. As to dabconcept, it doesn't make sense and I've made a good faith effort to get it through to you and I can not repeat myself to eternity, neither am I responsible some how for adding the word PoK in the article, infact I have made my opinion clear that the article is good as is. There doesn't need to be a pre-170 Azad Kashmir article, infact that would be an obvious POV fork just like there is no pre Bangladesh war Pakistan article. It makes sense to create a section and explain why and how it was decided here in this article. It was explained a lot clearer 2 years back but some one merged it into other sections. So feel free to create a section on how or why GB was split from Azad Kashmir. About my efforts to resolve this issue... I am starting an RFC below specifically about WP:DABCONCEPT. If the consensus is to create a dab, so be it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like you're not ready to accept any consensus and not ready to include just the word 'occupied' in Azad Kashmir page as well.
 * ,, I can see there's a small valid point in TopGun argument that Azad Kashmir alone is not considered as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The 1/6th of world population in India and a lot of world media, world organizations believes and knows what is Pakistan occupied Kashmir when J&K acceded to India. So, the land or region called Azad Kashmir, Gilgit–Baltistan and Aksai Chin are together called as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, per Indian Government and perception of Indian people and rest of the world. I would concede to have a dedicated page with Title and Page name everything created for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir including all these regions. If not, let's have the reference of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in all these three pages respectively. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 06:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Disambiguating PoK
There's a disagreement specifically about whether Pakistan-occupied Kashmir should be redirected here or should it be a dab page. As of status quo, this page was a redirect to this article. But amidst this discussion, created a dab out of it. I have reverted it back for now so that we can achieve a clearer consensus about what WP:DABCONCEPT says about it. My initial position was also of a dab a few years back about Pakistan-administered Kashmir but an uninvolved user from a wikiproject,, changed my mind and we redirected it and eventually to this article as primary topic and that was the end of the issue. Now a new user opened the Pandora's box again and I am using the same argument as BD2412 for PoK that to have a dab, we need it to be a name with one-to-many targets like Mercury (planet) and Mercury (car) and not a POV name that refers to the whole combined area of two territories in control of Pakistan; Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan (Azad Kashmir and GB were combined until 1970s when Pakistan split them, and that may need a section in this article, where as India alone continues to call them both as Pakistan occupied Kashmir in its POV), instead it should be redirected here where it is explained in the lede neutrally that it is Pakistan-administered / controlled Kashmir (which is synonymous to Indian POV usage of occupied as it is for Pakistan's usage for Indian-occupied Kashmir which redirects to its primary article). Other than the dab discussion, our policy related consensus was a discussion in progress towards some clear decision making on whether or not to using POV terms in lede (seemingly bent towards status quo), but in case of this dab, Kautilya3 has claimed WP:IAR although it does not make sense according to me. Your input would be welcomed on whether to create a dab page or to keep it redirected here and continue the above discussion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep redirect / oppose dab as nom, per my rationale above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose disambiguation and keep the redirect as it is. The matter of not having a disambiguation (or for that matter, seperate page) for Pakistan-administered Kashmir or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (and instead redirecting both to here) was settled by consensus some time ago over here and here, as it had issues relating to WP:DABCONCEPT and WP:NPOV. Also, both terms (Pakistan administered Kashmir and Pakistan occupied Kashmir) almost exclusively refer to Azad Kashmir whenever used in most sources. Gilgit-Baltistan is generally just referred to as Gilgit Baltistan and is often left out of the Kashmir debate. Very rarely is Gilgit-Baltistan called "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" or "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" alone, and when it is, it is almost always referred to that collectively with Azad Kashmir. I'll quote an argument used by Shrigley in the past which is quite relevant: "according to this book, "While the Northern Areas are typically left out of the general debate on the future of Kashmir (it is widely assumed that any future disposition will not involve significant transfers of territory of sovereignty in this region), the final status of Azad Kashmir is very much part of the overall equation. Most plans involving some form of mixed control, land swaps, or dual citizenship focus on the Indian-controlled territories of Kashmir Valley and Jammu, and the Pakistan-controlled territory of Azad Kashmir." It's quite like Aksai Chin, which our Kashmir article uncontroversially treats as "part of Kashmir", seemingly to justify India's territorial claims, despite the fact successive Chinese governments never accepted the princely state's claim on Aksai Chin."  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I am not fully opposed to mentioning 'Pakistan-occupied Kashmir' as an alternative term in the lead, although it must be kept concise and made clear that this is what the Indian government refers to it as. I am opposed to having a seperate disambiguation page for the term however, which as I made clear above, has several issues.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could use a footnote in the article (and link that footnote somewhere in the lead) listing the alternative terms Pakistan-administered Kashmir, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Pakistan-controlled Kashmir instead of cluttering the lead. This may also address TopGun's concern about the lead being cluttered with all these terms.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I or other editors, did not think of using footnotes although I've seen their usage to do away with such issues. That's a great an acceptable suggestion for lede of AJK to use a phrase like, "it is referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir[note] together with Gilgit-Baltistan". And use the dozen terms being debated in the note mentioning India calls it such and in turn same is used for the counter part by Pakistan. It would kill the debate if other editors agree to it. This way some one like Jinishans would not have to complain that I came to this article and did not find my POV mentioned here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good compromise. Vanamonde93 and Kautilya3, your take on this?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose DAB support footnote I buy the argument that this is the primary topic; the point I have repeatedly raised is the content guideline. Like I said above, I am not particular as to how that problem is solved, and the footnote does the job (I think). There are some slight visibility issues with a footnote, but in the interests of compromise, I am willing to let those go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support footnote - Though it is not ideal. I have checked a few sources and it does seem that PoK means just Azad Kashmir. So, my DAB page was wrong. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I have removed the RFC tag as all editors involved in the dab discussion have aligned to a unanimous decision; the uninvolved are probably needed more elsewhere, though still welcome to comment. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support redirecting to the POK WP:DAB page that also includes Pantoate kinase (, PoK, TK2141 protein), which is an enzyme. This discussion seems to have developed tunnel vision on the "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" aspect of it and is failing to realize there are things outside of that. If I had been unable to find other things that should be disambiguated at this title, I would have just closed it with consensus to redirect here. Unfortunately, I did find other valid uses for PoK, and I believe that would require too many hatnotes if the redirect continued to point here and as such support the disambig. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , The consensus developing was for the full form of the term 'Pakistan-occupied Kashmir'. The usage of PoK here was just to shorten it and not to refer to the redirect of 'PoK' itself... a 3 letter abbreviation would ofcourse have other terms with same name and PoK should be a disambig unlike the full form of the term (the latter is resolved here by the use of footnotes). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ,, , - I can see there's a small valid point in TopGun argument that Azad Kashmir alone is not considered as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.
 * As I mentioned above in our original discussion at the end, the 1/6th of world population in India and a lot of world media, world organizations believes and knows what is Pakistan occupied Kashmir when J&K acceded to India. So, the land or region called Azad Kashmir, Gilgit–Baltistan and Aksai Chin are together called as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, per Indian Government and perception of Indian people and rest of the world.
 * I would concede to have a dedicated page with Title and Page name everything created for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir including all these regions.
 * If not, let's have the reference of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in all these three pages respectively in the first paragraph itself and I don't know the way, it should show in the 1st line below the Title at least that this part of the land (under all 3 pages) that it's considered part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as per Indian view and it's a claim, belief, truth. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The rest of your argument aside, Aksai Chin has never been in Pakistani control; it has been in Chinese control since 1962, and therefore is not Pakistan occupied Kashmir in any sense of the term. Let's at least stick to things that have the semblance of a legitimate dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We can not have 1/6th of the world's POV on wikipedia, we go by a neutral POV all over. So the point that you are coming to this article and not understanding what it is about, although silly, is still well addressed after Mar4d's suggestion. Your first suggestion is what we call a POV fork and it was decided by a previous RFC consensus specifically for this the case of Azad Kashmir to not have such a page as well. As for your repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT of adding it to the lede, you should drop the stick and stop beating the dead horse and respect the consensus here. Also FYI, Aksai Chin is Chinese-occupied as per your POV :) -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aksai Chin might be under Chinese control, but, it was given by Pakistan to China I believe in 1962 to make this J&K dispute become International, instead of bi-lateral. It doesn't mean it was not part of the restwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hence, it's also part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, but as per 1/6th of this World Population, Indians.
 * No one can convince you or your offline friends from Pakistani Right wing party PTI folks like Mar4d, and the point you've highlighted at last was also true that it's not just Azad Kashmir is POK, rather all 3 regions are called POK, hence I've created the new page, let anyone contribute to this new page I created 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' and all content from either public search engines like google.com, bing.com and yahoo.com redirect to this new page Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. You can continue to keep expanding your Pakistan POV in Azad Kashmir. Though I'm an Indian, I'm not here to solve this dispute, just to improve Wikipedia to provide enough information on what's largely called 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir'.
 * Also, it's not just 1/6 people of India, it is indeed 1/6 of people of the World, who believes and thinks all these 3 regions are called Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, which they've every right to come and contribute and learn what it's all about. You may not have any right to question that, rather even Wikipedia as well. I'll try to put forth my argument and valid points to Admins to know why a page called Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is required. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>)
 * That was Trans-Karakoram Tract. You might find more use of your time reading wikipedia than writing it. I've nominated his silly WP:POVFORK of this article titled New page wikipedia‎ for CSD. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You may need to read that in Jammu and Kashmir page in Wiki, History section, last but third para, that it was Chine who took control of it, and inturn Pakistan made this agreement. Let's not advise each other, to learn History from each other, everyone knows the truth and history. You're free to remove the redirect of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir from Azad Kashmir page. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @Jinishans: First of all, let's get something straight. One more time you label me a right wing party nationalist, a PTI editor, an offline editor or whatever etc., I will report you. I've been putting up with these nonsensical personal attacks of yours on five different occasions and had been ignoring them, but this is where we reach the tipping point. I've been editing for years, have been here longer than you and I think my merits as an editor are apparent, so let's not debate on them. Let me give you a final reminder that personal attacks are not taken kindly here on Wikipedia, and evidence of repetitively using them (which I have) is liable to get you blocked. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Just because someone does not agree with your WP:POV or twisted world view does not give you legitimacy to make personal comments. You are the only editor displaying right-wing nationalism here.


 * Secondly, you need to understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. We have consensus from above and in past many discussions that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is meant to be a redirect, not a disambiguation or stand-alone article. Your recent creation of this link not only violates WP:CONSENSUS but the article itself is also a textbook definition of WP:POVFORK. Per WP:POVFORK (quote: As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion) and the existing consensus, I'm going to have to revert your recent edits at Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Thirdly, I had given a reasonable and acceptable compromise in good faith in resolving this issue, which is that a WP:FOOTNOTE could be added to the lead explaining the usage of the term Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan-administered Kashmir would still be mentioned in the WP:LEAD and a footnote can be tagged to this term explaining the former terms, with a link to the Kashmir conflict article. All editors except you found this proposal reasonable, flexible, neutral and a good compromise. It is only you who is hell bent on promoting one POV here and not listening to others. This says a lot about your intentions. Sorry to say, but I can't see how long you can persist like this in complete disregard. Such disruptive and POV-warriorship will get you blocked, sooner or later.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's leave the issue you're from a particular party for another day.
 * WP:CONSENSUS works only for me or should work only others not for you Mar4d, TopGun, others who support the Pakistan POV ? Why would that be right ? It is Pakistan POV that the region is not called as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, hence you're all promoting that tooth and nail.
 * It's not a fork as POK does represents all three regions, not just one region.
 * As per all of you Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is not just Azad Kashmir, it's all three regions.
 * Either we should have a dedicated page for the same or add that 'this part of the land is also called Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' in all these three pages.Jinishans (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @: WP:CONSENSUS works only for me or should work only others not for you Mar4d, TopGun, others who support the Pakistan POV ?... nope. You don't understand how WP:CONSENSUS works. Consensus comes after discussion between involved parties and the prevailing decision and agreement on what is the best method to achieve a resolution towards goals. At the moment,, , and I unanimously agree that the term Pakistan-occupied Kashmir may be mentioned in the lead in an attached footnote. You ditched this convergence of viewpoints and went a step ahead by evading this consensus and creating your own WP:POVFORK article since things did not fit your WP:POV. This is a form of gaming the system. You don't have the authority to impose your POV against consensus, that is in fact disruptive editing. Secondly, there is no such region as "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir". It is just a term used to refer to parts of Kashmir in Pakistan, like how Jammu and Kashmir is termed Indian Occupied Kashmir. There is no administrative entity officially existing as PoK. So the article proclaiming Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as some sort of entity is not only a WP:POVFORK but also fits WP:HOAX and WP:OR.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ,, , Ok, let's put a full stop to this. I'll come to a consensus with you all if it's agreeable to all of you folks. I want to have the term 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' mentioned in these three region pages, i.e. Azad Kashmir, Gilgit–Baltistan and Aksai Chin pages, but not as a foot note or in some History section. It has to be there in the very 1st paragraph as it's really important term represented in media, UN speeches, etc.
 * If this is not agreeable, let's have a dedicated page for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir
 * Still, we'll have an issue, to which page this term Pakistan Occupied Kashmir will redirect, as this represents all three regions. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Aksai Chin is administered by China, not Pakistan. I can't see any source calling it part of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. United Nations documents don't incorporate Aksai Chin as a Pakistani-administered territory of Kashmir. So calling that region a part of PoK is both unsourced and original research.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Jinishans is probably here to right all wrongs. This is proved by his creation of a WP:POVFORK and then his canvassing attempts ; which have still not stopped after my explanation to him . Since the consensus is obviously achieved on this talkpage except for Jinishans WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, so I am going to stop answering his questions so that this does not turn much worse for him than he has already made it by yet again going for canvassing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with TopGun, the best approach is probably to drop the stick since this user is simply not willing to abide with consensus and accept compromise. There's no chance of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir being changed to an article as per WP:POVFORK. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir can be mentioned, but as a footnote, as the neutral term Pakistan-administered Kashmir is already covered in the lead. Both terms essentially mean the same thing and have the same connotations. I don't understand the reason for Jinishan's consistent stubbornness over the inclusion of all the terms.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a compromise, it's a Pakistani POV imposed on this article. Users who search for a term, but come to a page, which doesn't have it's title, doesn't have any wording about it, good compromise.Jinishans (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Footnote
I have added a footnote following our discussion above.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is a bit of a WP:COATRACK. Note that we also need at least one reference for every term and every abbreviation used.  We can't make up stuff here. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Coatrack is something else. This article is not at all written to make a point; the note is precisely avoiding that. It's a note (a part of the lede), and it's moot and WP:OVERKILL adding refs to atleast "occupied" or "administered" terms... obviously they are correct (and hence all the discussion?). But if you want to go by adding refs to the note, be my guest as I was not the one asking to add the terms anyway. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, let us not get into "correct" business! If we say somebody calls it that, we need to give a reference. The WP:COATRACK is because it is crowding out the main point, which is to introduce the terminology used for AJK, especially the Indian terminology. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not always the case, but well.. I don't mind (Jinishans's que to give refs). The compromise was to introduce the Indian terminology. When such a terminology comes in, to stick to NPOV in over all, contradicting points of views definitely come in. It isn't really crowding out the main point. It gives exactly half weight to the Indian view in the note as compared to the Pakistani view. These things were always better left at the Kashmir conflict article but that's how they are and we've to keep NPOV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * lol. Indians calling AJK "Pakistan-occupied" is like saying the sky is blue? Very funny.  Our job as Wikipedians is to educate people.  So, giving a good citation that explains why Indians think Pakistan occupied it would be good.  Right now, page 2 of Christopher Snedden's book (numbered "1892" on Google Books for some reason) has a decent explanation.  So, I will add that. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The source you added for Pakistan held Kashmir seems to be an Indian writer. I don't think Pakistan-held Kashmir is a neutral usage either. Only administered and controlled are the neutral usages I have read as far. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are Indian historians, but good people! They have deliberately avoided the "occupied" term, and that is why I picked them, to give Indian readers an idea of the diversity of terminology.  The other two references are Indian original people in the UK and the US.  As to the neutrality of "held", for most ordinary people, it tends to mean the same as "controlled", but I know that there are myriads of nuances that I am glossing over. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't say that a source from any nationality would always hold a POV of that nationality, but just that we'd need to give it higher scrutiny as to what is actually being said in the source text. For the neutrality, I've mostly heard it in synonymous usage with occupied in news which makes me reserved about the term (although technically it does mean controlled; maybe if we go into semantics, it would be somewhere between controlled and occupied)... but yeah well, you phrased it right on myriad of nuisances that come with the terminologies and it's best for wikipedia to not give such an impression (for Pakistani-held or Indian-held). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there are always compulsions. An Indian academic sitting in India can't use the term "Azad Kashmir" because then they would get shouted down as being anti-national or some such thing.  So, they started using "Pakistan-held," duplicating the term that Pakistan itself had been using for the valley.  It might be that the Pakistani sense was that the valley was "held against its will" or "held down" or something.  But those subtleties are lost on most ordinary people.  A lot of liberal Indian writers, e.g., Arundhati Roy, use both "Indian-held" and "Pakstan-held" for the two parts of Kashmir.  So, if there were indeed some negative connotations originally, they have been lost.  I hope it will stay that way. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems good and as per consensus here. All POVs balanced in note with NPOV in lede. Infact, this is more informative for the reader; the one who really wants to go into those details can hover the mouse over the note or click it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's understandable. Improvements are always welcome, as long as it's all balanced and represented neutrally. Just as it is important to mention the Indian terms for the region, it would also be necessary to mention the Pakistani terms for the Indian-administered region, which is what I tried to do. It's not meant to be WP:COATRACK.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a point. "Pakistan-held Kashmir"[3] are used by neutral writers. Conversely, Pakistani sources call the territory under Indian control "Indian-Held Kashmir" ("IHK").[2]. Double standard? --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get what you mean. The term "Indian-held Kashmir" is used by the Pakistan government as well, not just "neutral writers".  Would you like to suggest an alternative wording? Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I think that was a tu quoque for a writer using the same wording for the two nations being called a neutral in one case and a Pakistani source in the other (while the term remains equivalent?), it might have some weight if we have further information about whether the author using "Indian-held Kashmir" is a neutral author and hence we've put in a claim that "neutral sources call it Indian-held Kashmir" (which would be synthesis as compared to a Pakistani or an Indian official being quoted to use the word and correctly labeled as a national source) or does the source referencing the word actually, explicitly, says that "this terminology is used by neutral sources" (in which case we give a proper consideration to it in editor consensus here). Being used by neutral sources is a claim and we as editors should not judge it without a secondary source saying that. As I said, we can judge though when a UN term is used and agreed upon in secondary sources or when a secondary source quotes a primary source with their POV to label it as a neutral or primary source respectively. I do agree, the term 'held' should be used on par with both sides. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't giving a tu quoque, I was genuinely perplexed. But I am thinking about it.  I have a question.  What was the Indian side of J&K called in Pakistan prior to 1980? Kautilya3 (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque was by Sawtooth, not you... but I agree with the point in principle so I made my own remark. India didn't divide its part so its always been the same. Pakistan split AJK and GB but since this didn't kill the dispute, the names continue. Infact there's no contention about both countries' POV. The contention is about using only the neutral terms as neutral. I made a slight change to make it symmetrical and inclusive of these last comments without changing much of the way you wrote it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure that the terminology "Indian-held Kashmir" came into use after the insurgency in the Kashmir Valley in the 80's. Very likely, it was the coinage of JKLF or somebody.  My question is, what was it called before then? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Administered, Occupied, Azad and so on... there're many terms even without "held". Azad's been there since start same as occupied. Infact, in Pakistan it is just 'Occupied Kashmir' often rather than 'Indian-occupied Kashmir', and this article was once reflecting that too... things keep changing here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pakistan held Kashmir is Indian wording. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it is used by pretty much everybody. Check, , , . An interesting example is this Indian news story , where the journalist is using "Pakistan-held" and "Pakistan-administered" in the newspaper's voice, whereas it is "Pakistan-occupied" in the Minister's (Shinde) voice. You really have to appreciate the efforts of these people, who are deliberately trying to get away from the Indian Government's POV terminology. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * your question was "is it a double standard." I think not.  "Pakistan-held Kashmir" is used by Indians who are trying to be even-handed about the dispute, as well as by international sources.  That is why I called them "neutral writers".  Perhaps "independent writers" is better.  Since Pakistan government uses the reverse term "Indian-held Kashmir," if you want to say that the Pakistan government is also using neutral terminology, I am happy to give them credit for that.  But they also use "Indian-occupied Kashmir".  So, what they really mean is only known to them. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I wikilinked "other areas" to GB for reader benefit, hope there are no objections. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You folks made a big mockery of Wikipedia by adding it as a footnote. Good keep up your good work, EOD the users of Wikipedia who searches for a Term called 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' in internet, will find nothing but all sort of information other than the term they searched for.Jinishans (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Prominent Kashmiris
Naeemchak (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Naeemchak (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aziz Khan, former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Pakistan
 * Baba Shadi Shaheed, Sufi saint
 * Barrister Sultan Mahmood, former prime minister of Azad Kashmir
 * Baba-e-Poonch Khansahib Col Khan Muhammad Khan, MLA for Bagh and Sudhonoti Tehsil, 1934–1946
 * Mian Muhammad Bakhsh, Sufi saint
 * Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan, former prime minister and president of Azad Kashmir
 * Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan (1915-2003) Founder and first President of Azad Kashmir
 * Sardar Muhammad Anwar Khan, vice-chief of the General Staff
 * Saif Ali Janjua, Hilal-e-Kashmir awardee
 * Lord Nazir Ahmed, member of the UK House of Lords

Trust aware (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2014
The Title should be Pakistan occupied kashmir.Title Azad kashmir is a jihadist point of view.A/c to treaty of accession signed by Maharaja of kashmir with India the whole Jammu and Kashmir belong to India.Invasion inside territory of J&k is violation of sovereign rights of India.The area occupied is administered by pakistan hence it is very logical to call it Pakistan occupied kashmir.

120.59.240.148 (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

❌ as WP:COMMONNAME - Arjayay (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would add that the legal aspects of accession matter little; what matters are scholarly sources on the subject, and how they discuss the issue. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add facts to this Azad Kashmir page apart from changing the title, we're discussing below ' PoK as title or Anything related to disputed'. Could you guys help me to resolve this. Two users from Paskistan's right wing party PTI are not allowing me to add facts to this page. <b style="color:#FF9933">ljinishansl</b> (<b style="color:#FF9933">talk</b>) Jinishans (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith while editing with other editors. I'm not from any party so let's stay civil and not make accusations just because the consensus was not to add your version on top of it not being neutral. Stick to the discussion about content, not about the users. To add to it, 4 editors have reverted you as of now. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

TopGun, Mar4d is from PTI is what I referred, not sure about you, anything from Mar4d should be biased based on his Party view. How can we then consider and take it as final. Also, you're also not ready for anny consensus, keep repeating the same. Hence trying to get help from someone else as same issue is being raised here. User:jinishans<b style="color: (User talk:jinishans<b style="color:) Jinishans (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Info box image.
The current Montague for Azad Kashmir has three stunning photographs of three stunning locations - but they are all very similar indeed. I understand we are talking about a small area of land, but could more variety be added to the montage? Say, a street view? --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of asking TopGun or someone in Pakistan if they've any more nice pictures, we should add. These are places of natural beauty.Jinishans (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * If the wiki monuments competition included photographs of Azad Kashmir there would be some good photographs. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Temporary Full Protection
I request administrator to enable full protection to this Azad Kashmir page with "20:31, 9 November 2014‎ Vanamonde93" changes until full consensus is reached on this Talk page.Jinishans (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can not editwar your favoured version in and then ask for a protection on it. It simply wont happen when you do it like this. Also you are the only editor who seems to be pushing this in, another editor tried to make it less POV, while yet another totally reverted you. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)