Talk:Indian Administrated Kashmir

Its very strange that despite such a controversial topic, there is no discussion on this page... Has it been redirected elsewhere? Lost 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd like to see discussion as well. One particular user's personal dislike of the page (see my comments below) is not really a sufficient excuse of continuous blanking of the page. I'd request the user to discuss his actions properly and reach a consensus. --Ragib 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Twisting policies
, please do not try to twist policies. First you add a speedy tag, which Bhadani removed as the article does not meet speedy in any way. Next, you add prod tag which I removed because I contested the tag. Then you add a duplicate article tag, which is not clear from the article you mention. And finally, you blank the page making it a redirect to another page. Please stop twisting wikipedia's policies and procedures. If you don't like the article, that's your problem. You are always free to discuss in the talk page, and reach a consensus. But dislike of an article is not a sufficient cause of your above actions. Thanks. --Ragib 05:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I thought it was clear cut. But may be not. Jammu and Kashmir is exactly same as "Indian occupied kashmir'. So I wish to merge it with that article which is in much better shape. Anand Arvind 07:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's see what other editors think. Until then, please refrain from blanking. It seems that other editors (e.g. Siddiqui ) are opposed to the redirection. Let's hear their arguments. Thanks. --Ragib 07:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I did add merge template for a day before redirecting. Nobody argued against or showed opposition at that time. After the redirection Siddiqui reverted without giving any argument for his actions. This time why not reach consensus here before doing anything. Anand Arvind 07:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I read both articles and the Jammu & Kashmir article does contain almost all the info under the section "The Kashmir dispute" that this one has. Plus this article seems highly POV with statements such as the following:


 * The territory that India was unable to usurp is known as "Azad (free) Kashmir".
 * since 1950 India has refused to honor this UN resolution: The BBC article referred to states clearly that the resolution requires some preconditions to be met. They are not mentioned here
 * The Pakistani government has been emphasising the resolution of the Kashmir Issue according to the will of the Kashmiri people, however the Indian Government is not willing to comprise any part of the Kashmir held by India.


 * I would vote for merge because of the duplicaton Lost 08:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The title is inherently POV. This article should not exist. &mdash; Ravikiran 10:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Indian contributors have added Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) in several Wikipedia that must be changed to Pakistan admininistrated Kashmir. The Pakistani contributors should also change Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) to Indian admininistrated Kashmir. The Terrorism in Kashmir should be deleted  or merged with Indian admininistrated Kashmir. Then we will need Freedom Struggle in Kashmir page to discuss Kashmiri freedom struggle and Indian state terrorism.
 * Siddiqui 11:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to do all those things, you will have to propose to do them individually. Wikipedia is not a war zone and you are not holding territory to negotiate or exchange. The article Pakistan occupied Kashmir redirects to Pakistan Administered Kashmir as it should To say that something is "occupied" by a country is inherently PoV. But the second issue here is that the area you call "Indian occupied Kashmir" or "India administered Kashmir" is currently covered under the non-disputed name of Jammu and Kashmir (the name is non-disputed, not the ownership of the area. ) So there is nothing that can legitimately written in the article India administered Kashmir that cannot be written in the article Jammu and Kashmir. So there is no need to have separate articles, and everything should redirect to Jammu and Kashmir. &mdash; Ravikiran 12:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You did not deal with the issue of Terrorism in Kashmir. This would also be merged wit a existing article. Why should there be Pakistan Administered Kashmir when Indian administered Kashmir does not exist. Why should there be Terrorism in Kashmir when Freedom Struggle in Kashmir page does not exist.The Indian contributors have added Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) in several Wikipedia that must be changed to Pakistan admininistrated Kashmir. The Pakistani contributors should also change  Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) to Indian admininistrated Kashmir. There should be comprehensive agreement on these pages.
 * Siddiqui 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel we are mixing with politics with the spirit of an encyclopedia. We should discuss this article here regarding how it should appear in an encyclopedia. You can initiate debates for the other articles on their respective talk pages and consensus can be arrived at. I still feel 1)This article contains duplicate info 2) Its highly POV. Lost 12:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Then may be with same encyclopedic spirit we should also deal with all issues at the same time. This will save time, effort and bitterness.
 * Siddiqui 13:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in knowing that the encyclopedic spirit explicitly prohibits what you are proposing. WP:Point says that if you think that some wrong is being done somewhere else, you shouldn't retaliate by committing the same wrong here just to prove your point. &mdash; Ravikiran 13:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I wasn't clear the first time, so let me explain again. If you want to rename Terrorism in Kashmir to something else, you will have to propose that on the appropriate page. Similarly, if Indian contributors write "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" in any article, you can and should change it in those articles. Neither of those issues have a bearing on whether this article's title and existence are appropriate. These are Wikipedia articles here, not pieces of territory to be exchanged in return for other pieces. &mdash; Ravikiran 13:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is time for an RFC on the question of whether this article should be redirected to Jammu and Kashmir or not. &mdash; Ravikiran 14:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Reaching consensus is the best option in handling controversial issues. --Ragib 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Should this article redirect to Jammu and Kashmir? &mdash; Ravikiran 14:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This region referred to is exactly the same as the J&K article.
 * The title is inherently POV.
 * Any content of the article that is not covered by the J&K article will be a POV fork from History of the Kashmir conflict, which is not allowed.
 * The opposing arguments do not talk of the validity of this article, but of the alleged perfidies of other Indian editors elsewhere on Wikipedia. That is not a valid argument.

I agree. There is no need to redirect. 69.230.187.229 05:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The article should be redirected to Jammu & Kashmir because:
 * All info given here is covered under the section Kashmir Conflict in that article and hence is just duplication.
 * The article is highly POV. Lost 06:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's much to merge (everything covered here seems at least recapitulated in the J&K article), so I too would support a redirect (of course, if we don't merge anything, we'd not need to preserve the history per the GFDL and could delete the page altogether, although it's eminently possible that one might search for this title, and so a redirect is probably better, even as the title as given, notwithstanding its POVish nature, contravenes the MoS [should be Indian-occupied Kashmir, IMHO]). Joe 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Page histories can be merged. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean that is a feature in Mediawiki?? &mdash; Ravikiran 13:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not mediawiki. This can be done by admins. Very few admins actually carry this out because the action is irreverible and involves a lot of fixing of content. Usually only experienced admins do this. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect. This article is a POV fork nothing more. 69.230.228.237 03:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect.Bharatveer 05:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect, this is not a commonly used name. --Gurubrahma 10:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose:
 * Keep. Siddiqui 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Firstly, I think that it was highly irregular to redirect "Indian Occupied Kashmir" to "Indian Administered Kashmir" when an RFC was going on without discussing the question on the RFC. Secondly, while I agree that "Indian Administered Kashmir" is less POV, my basic problem with the content of the article is that if it is an article about the region, then the region has been covered in Jammu and Kashmir. If it is an article about the various claims and counterclaims by the two sides, then there are two articles that deal with it, History of the Kashmir conflict and Terrorism in Kashmir. That is where those should go. If you think that Jammu and Kashmir should redirect to Indian Administered Kashmir, please discuss that question first - Ravikiran


 * I totally agree with Ravikiran. But would like to hear Siddiqui's reasoning to oppose. Infact, for a while, we had two articles before Ravikiran again redirected Indian Occupied Kashmir to Indian Administered Kashmir When do we finally take a decision on this Lost 11:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)