Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2015–2016

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015
Farhad Uddin (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Government Universities in AJK
"University of Management Sciences and Information Technology,Kotli Ajk" is the latest government university established in the AJK. It was made an independent university in May 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.128.4 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute
,, I noticed you two are having a content dispute, let's discuss it here. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse friends, i am open to it. I am writing a fact there that the area is disputed giving proper sources and also writing the term Pakistan administered Kashmir in infobox as the term redirects here and is another name for the territory. Don't know why human3015 is deleting these facts. May be he dosen't considers it as Disputed Land but India, JKLF United nations and other third parties considers it along with entire J&K as disputed region. Shekhar 17:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , as you said on my talk page, I accept that UN calls Azad Kashmir as "Pakistan administered Kashmir", but we should not write it in infobox as main name. We should write only official name in infobox. We can write these "administered" things in lead, and it is already written in lead. If you are writing in this way in infobox then you should also write "Indian administered Kashmir" in infobox of Jammu and Kashmir.-- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 17:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , The official name is official from one party's point of view, still its accepted as the title of the article and given importance all over the article but as the same term is not accepted by entire world for that territory, so both terms should be mentioned in the infobox. And also as the term redirects on this page its worth mentioning it there. encyclopedia should contain all kind of possible information about any topic. As per jammu & kashmir please go ahead and write it disputed as that's also disputed between 3 parties with same logic as here, but currently as we are talking about Azad Kashmir so we should focus on this article only. Thanks Shekhar 17:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , don't talk about redirects, you can see where these redirects goes, Indian occupied Kashmir, Indian administered Kashmir etc. I can give you more. In infobox we write only article name. And article name is "Azad Kashmir". Also if you want to mention about these things, you can mention it in lead or in any other part with proper sources. But not in infobox. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 17:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

is right. The term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" doesn't belong in the infobox. As per MOS:INFOBOX, only the most essential information should be put into it. The official name, no matter what you say about its "partisan" nature, is widely used. We don't put additional names in the infobox unless they are as widely or more widely used than the official name (such as Mumbai/Bombay). That is not the case here. I also disagree with the attempt to put "disputed region" right up front. That is not the most apt description of the subject. The dispute issue is covered in the second paragraph, which is perfectly fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are right that most essential information should be written in infobox, but what i want to say isn't it an essential information about the territory that its disputed between two major nations, one calls it Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and third parties along with United Nations terms it Pakistan Administered Kashmir. These info are as important as its Pakistan's version Azad Kashmir, hence they should also be given place in infobox. If not in main name then atleast in alternate_name column or another column saying Disputed Region along with parties involved. Same qualifies for all disputed territories in the world. People should know about all the possible facts in the lead and information box too.
 * Also as u say u don't like to put disputed word in right up front then its just the way you like things to be presented. But the fact is that the area is disputed and this information should be present right upfront along with administrative territory of Pakistan. As per me This will be the most appropriate description of the area covering all the related facts (Pak Administered Kashmir & Disputed) in one sentence. As both are truth Then why leave one and write one fact only in the header line.
 * Human3015 is only saying that it should not be done as similar things are not there in J&K and India Adminstered Kashmir articles. Then i only tell him that that's also wrong as entire J&K is disputed and this information should be there in the lead and infobox too in Disputed Region column or alternate name column. What i feel and suggest is that, Any encyclopedia article should not be about how one or two or all have a feeling about a territory but about the world level facts of that area/subject. Thanks Shekhar 05:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, unless you start arguing on the basis of third party reliable sources, all your arguments just amount to a WP:POV.
 * To repeat my point about the infobox, to insist that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" should be in the infobox, you need to demonstrate that it is preponderant in reliable sources as in the Bombay/Mumbai example. United Nations is an organisation of States, and they have to follow certain protocols to please all their members. Saying that the UN uses a particular term doesn't clinch the issue.
 * To put "disputed region" up front, again, you need to demonstrate that there is a preponderance of such a description in reliable sources.
 * Even though you have cited Christopher Snedden's book in your edit, it doesn't appear that you have actually read it, because the information in the book explicitly contradicts your claim that "Azad Kashmir" is a "Pakistan's version" of the region. You might at least read our page on him. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, So if United Nations and other international government institutions/agencies are not reliable for you, then who is reliable for you? United Nations just want to please everybody can you prove your statement..? As you urself said United Nations is an organisation of states, means lot of third parties are member of its agencies which do research from an independent point of view. Until unless an UN report is challenged and cancelled in the General Assembly or any authorized body, the report is accepted all over the world. They are an organisation set up by more than 190 countries which have a major say in World Politics and other matters. They are the actual third parties which Pakistan and India both always refer to for Kashmir dispute since partition time itself. That's the world recognized third party organization which entire world refers to in cases of any disputes. If UN/EU and other international organizations are not reliable third party for you then Read this article over Kashmir Kashmir profile on BBC, and this one from a Kashmiri Entire State of Jammu and Kashmir is disputed hope you will say this is also not reliable as it is BBC and some west run media which may have some vested interests, however Wikipedia says BBC is reliable. Only reliable material for you may be from Pakistan's newspapers, authors or others which itself is a party in this case. Even Pakistani's accept that the area is disputed because of which India-Pak fought 4 wars. The same is written in article itself. There relations never improved because of Kashmir dispute. If you still don't believe that Kashmir is a disputed land and this fact should be mentioned in the lead of the article then i don't know which world you live in that you are still not aware of this fact. As per Christopher Snedden's book i took that reference from the article itself cited for a similar stmt. As Azad Kashmir is the name given by Pakistan Government so its of-course a Pakistani version, while Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is Indian and Pakistan Administered Kashmir is UN version. Shekhar 09:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is reliable? Well, read WP:RS. Also, WP:HISTRS for historical matters. News organisations, no matter how reputed, are not reliable sources for historical matters. You will also find there nothing about United Nations. It is just one source among many. Nobody denies that the UN can be expected to be impartial. However, it could also be less than truthful as a sop to its member countries. So, neither the UN nor the BBC can trump the scholarly sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ya, i have seen WP:RF, had given the same source in my comment above. Also WP:NEWSORG says that BBC, CNN, AP are mostly reliable and can be considered for citations. And this historical event is not of centuries back that these agencies along with UN cannot find out what had really happened that time. Its just some 60 years old and an ongoing matter. Since then A lot is written and discussed about Kashmir and Indo-Pak partition. But then lets go opposite now, please give one independent source where its written that Kashmir is not disputed and if it is then the dispute is not important and cause no effects. Leave United Nations as u don't believe that international organisation is independent and reliable enough.Shekhar 12:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSORG only says that news organisations are reliable for news reporting, i.e., current events, not for historical matters. WP:HISTRS says When historians first begin to write about an event, then it should be regarded as a historical article. Sources that were previously satisfactory, such as reports in the mainstream press, should be replaced by sources from historical scholarship. So, this needs to be done for all the Kashmir articles.
 * As for producing sources WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to make the change. So, your demand is untenable. In any case, a search for "Azad Kashmir" on Google Scholar produces some 6,000 hits. An equivalent search for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" produces about 600. So, it is clear that the preponderance of sources is against your POV. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done my part, have given enough sources to prove that Kashmir is a disputed area. Most of the people in world knows that its a disputed area for which India and Pakistan fought 4 wars and this area is the main reason between there rivalry and poor relations. 600 sources are not less to show a fact, its a good amount. How many of these 3000 hits are independent sources, most of them seems to be written from Pakistan related agencies/people. Just like Azad Kashmir is a fact Pakistan Administered Kashmir and Kashmir is a disputed land is also a fact that no one can deny. Shekhar 13:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I also felt the Azad Kashmir page title should be changed to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir rather than 'administered' and somewhat inline with what Shekhar saying, as it's the widely used term, end of last year, and wanted to add at least this term is mentioned in the first paragraph with the abbreviation (POK), but, TopGun and few others resisted, in fact from the most right wing party, PTI came into defense for not having any reference to either Pakistan Occupied Kashmir or POK in the page title or first paragraph, finally they gagged me to a corner and have it just included at the end of the page. BTW, If I go with your logic, "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" produces about 1100 hits on Google Scholar and the term "POK" has around 57,000 hits, where as "Azad Kashmir" has just only 6100 hits. If we go by your logic, we need to rename the Azad Kashmir page to Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as the page title. ljinishansl (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need to do anything. We've already gained consensus for using a footnote in replacement of your suggestions via this RFC. Your WP:BLUD and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruptive. You need to stop beating the dead horse. -- lTopGunl (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Pakistan Administrated Kashmir
In this artcle there is a statement that Neutral sources call it as Pakistan administrated Kashmir. I have checked the references and found that none of them are neutral, first one is the book of Sumantra Bose the Daughter of Indian politician Krishna Bose and a grandson of Sarat Chandra Bose, Second one is of Behera, Prof. Navnita Chadha University of Delhi,both of them are Indians.HIAS (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources must be reliable. There is no requirement that they be "neutral," which is impossible to determine anyway. There is no requirement of nationality. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But if it claim that Neutral sources call it as then the Sources should be from Neutral, you are quoting something from Indian books and refering that Neutral sources said this. I will try to search for alternate sources.HIAS (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' wants to join India --Ne0 (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYytpiFhXGM
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYxUjIQeqvI
 * http://inserbia.info/today/2015/09/pok-ready-to-become-part-of-india/
 * http://www.niticentral.com/2014/11/10/pakistan-pack-pok-says-muslim-cleric-244374.html

Protest in POK / PAK
Protests in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir / Pakistan Administrated Kashmir, against Pakistan government corruption, and Pakistan's misleading propaganda of 'Azad'(free) Kashmir. --Ne0 (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) South Asia Newsline
 * 2) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbt9heBXygI
 * 3) TheKashmirNews
 * 4) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNgINGPhwMY
 * 5) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3sHHY54EjQ
 * 6) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTLgtQjPSI4
 * 7) CNN-IBN
 * 8) * http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/pakistan-muzzles-pro-india-voices-in-pak-occupied-kashmir-with-brutal-force-human-rights-violations-1122655.html
 * 9) CNBC MoneyControl
 * 10) * http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/pak-muzzles-pro-india-voicespokbrutal-force_3330581.html
 * 11) ZeeNews
 * 12) * http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/massive-protests-erupt-in-pok-people-demand-freedom-from-pakistan_1804040.html
 * 13) Tehelka
 * 14) * http://www.tehelka.com/2015/09/pakistan-left-red-faced-over-protests-in-pok/


 * Please be specific, what changes or improvement you are suggesting by adding these links? -- S M S  Talk 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Azad' Kashmir is NOT a 'self-governing state', as the Pakistani authorities govern 'Azad' Kashmir with strict controls on basic freedoms. So remove the part of sentence about it being self-governing.
 * Add the alternative names 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir' and 'Pakistan Administrated Kashmir', in the first paragraph.
 * we could add info about the situation in 'Azad' Kashmir (reasons for the protests) under Azad_Kashmir, with the protest links as reference --Ne0 (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please go through this discussion and tell me how your argument differs from the ones presented in that discussion. -- S M S  Talk 11:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) There is no talk about 'self-governing state' in that discussion, so we remove that.

When king of Kashmir, Hari Singh hesitated to accede to Pakistan, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught to frighten its King, Hari Singh into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten of India for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars. A Line of Control(LoC) was created based on regions already occupied by Pakistan.

India claims the entire erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir based on the instrument of accession signed by Hari Singh in 1947. Pakistan claims the entire Jammu and Kashmir based on its majority Muslim population, except regions already acceded to China 2) If you want to keep the first paragraph as is, then we should add the above + the alternate names, after the first paragraph. A little history wouldn't hurt. --Ne0 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the above para, you solely presented the Indian story of the dispute. Read through the article Jammu and Kashmir, Maharaja was "promised referendum" after that accession and Nehru and Mountbatten themselves pledged plebiscite. While the Indian Governor-General Lord Mountbatten accepted the accession, it added the proviso that it would be submitted to a popular referendum since "only the people, not the Maharaja, could decide where Kashmiris wanted to live." It was a provisional accession. Regarding "Protests", they erupt in the Indian Administered/Occupied Kashmir everyday, does that change that territory from :self-governing" to "Indian occupied" too? Everyday, there curfews are imposed, telephone service is cut, still they are self-governing. Faizan (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Promises does not have any legal value. Politicians usually make promises of development, removing poverty, plebiscite etc. We should talk about legal documents which have some value, for example "Instrument of Accession". There is protest in "Pakistan occupied" Kashmir for "freedom" and this is really thing to be highlighted, specially such kind of news have been highlighted in Indian media since Nawaz Sharif gave "decade old" (as per media) speech in UN yesterday. Sharif gave 4 valuable points to resolve India-Pakistan conflict permanently, in which article those 4 valuable points should be included? India-Pakistan relations or else? In which article protests in "Azad Kashmir" should be included? Is there any possibility of article Insurgency in Azad Kashmir or Insurgency in Gilgit Baltistan? -- Human 3015   TALK    08:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Azad Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013165623/http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Kashmir/uncip(s1100).htm to http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Kashmir/uncip(s1100).htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ajad Kashmir - history
This is completely wrong fact that in independence act 1947 princely states were given right to be independent "At the time of the Partition of India in 1947, the British abandoned their suzerainty over the princely states, which were left with the options of joining India or Pakistan or remaining independent. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunsahu999 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The text is absolutely correct. Please see Kashmir conflict or the numerous sources cited there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Government
There is a seperate article for the rights in Azad Kashmir adding this qoute seems pointy as anyone can quote material from a plethora of human rights articles.Asim Sahi (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone object to edit of mine? Asim Sahi (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just reverted it. I think you are opening a can of worms. HRW is saying that Pakistani authorities govern AJK, which contradicts the Pakistani government's stance that it is a "self-governing" territory. WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources cannot be removed without good reason. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is fine. I think we need some quotes about issues in Jammu and Kashmir article to balance out hte pov. Asim Sahi (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

it is nonsesne. people from azad kashmir are also kashmiris. they are divided into small tribes such as jatts, battis, rajas, etc. Some people like kautilya3 are pursuing their agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanshepherd (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Azad Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11693674
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://herald.dawn.com/news/1153046
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516074510/http://www.southasianmedia.net/magazine/journal/grasping_nettle.htm to http://www.southasianmedia.net/magazine/journal/grasping_nettle.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514065929/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/ to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/
 * Added tag to http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/recent_publications/BGPaper_Remittances_Pakistan.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050227011515/http://pakistantimes.net/2004/09/27/kashmir5.htm to http://pakistantimes.net/2004/09/27/kashmir5.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607034448/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-4-2005_pg7_37 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-4-2005_pg7_37

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)