Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)/Archive 1

Vandalism by Indian nationalist/dilutionalist, this article is full of flaws and alters facts
being a neutral observer (neither indian or pakistani) Is it me or has this article been hijacked by Indian nationalist bent on distorting history and facts about the region. The UN resolution calls for the removal of all foreign troops from the state of Kashmir and the holding of a plebiscite. Pakistan is the only country that regularly brings up the issue of Kashmir at the United Nation, and all attempts to hold the plebiscite have been blocked by india. The fact that Kashmir still requires an estimated 700,000 indian occupying troops shows that there is a real problem here and that Kashmir being part of india is an unnatural arrangement. really this article needs to be improved and these indian nationalistic slants and biasis need to be removed to have a more neutral and balanced article for the wikipedia readers.

I AM KASHMIRI FORM KAHSMIR AND I AGREE WITH 100% THIS NEEDS TO EDITED BY NEUTRAL PARTY!!!! THIS BJP BS HAS TO END HERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.103.116.30 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is evident that you are as much of a neutral outsider to Kashmir as Napoleon was to the Napoleonic Wars.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
I intend to build up the page on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 using info from this page and then cut the info on that war out of this page so we don't have too many parallel versions. Any probs with this? After Indo-Oakistani War of 1947, Kashmir was divided between 2 Countries Azad Kashmir contolled by Pakistan and Indian Occupied Kashmir controlled by India.

stub?
should this still be considered a stub, I dont know how much more can be done with it unless you want to include info on the Indo-Pakistani Wars (which all have their own pages) on this page.

The previous statement was left by User:Gozar


 * The article doesn't contain anyting regarding the economy, culture and geography of the state. --IncMan 22:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

boundary of area claimed by India
If one compares Image:Kashmir map.jpg published by the CIA or other maps published by the UN, with ones published by governments and other organisations within India (e.g. ), one can see a marked difference of the boundary of Aksai Chin around its easternmost tip. Perhaps in order to really show what each country claims we've to make a map that contains all these different boundaries... -- Paddu 11:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Image:Kashmir.png shows the boundary as claimed by India. -- Paddu 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the CIA map is good enough. A map depicting the claims of all the countries would be too messy. Thanks --IncMan 12:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well there are only 3 countries here, and for NPOV I thought all the 3 views must be expressed. Also, there is the possibility of people mistaking the boundary as in the CIA map as the boundary that India claims, since it's not specifically mentioned anywhere that India claims something totally different from what these maps show. Also in the current situation, it looks like Image:Kashmir map.jpg and Image:Kashmir.png are inconsistent, which is IMHO not good for the encyclopaedia. Or probably someone could create an image which has both these images in it. -- Paddu 13:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference between the two maps is hardly anything. --User:Deepak gupta 15:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan's perspective
It should be stated in the first few sentences that Pakistan calls this area "Indian Occupied Kashmir." Just like it is done in the "Azad Kashmir" article; India's perspective is given in the first sentence. Sara Ahmed - 6 Sep 2005


 * Ok, I get your point. But at the same time, India doesn't call its part of Kashmir as Free Kashmir unlike Pakistan. By calling Pakistani-administered Kashmir as Azad Kashmir, Pakistan very well expresses its point of view and hence mentioning Indian perspective becomes necessary to maintain neutrality. In this case, one can't compare Jammu and Kashmir with Azad Kashmir as the former is very much a neutral term. Also, you signed yr comment at the Azad Kashmir talkpage by the name Fawwad while you referred to yrself as Sara Ahmed in the comment above. Please note that using sock puppets is against Wikipedia's policy. Thanks --User:Deepak gupta 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There you go with the Indian bias. I do not agree with you at all. "Azad" is an Urdu word fimiliar to Pakistanis and Indians but others do not understand it; Pakistan calls the area under its control "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" not "Free Jammu and Kashmir." To a person unfamiliar with the situation, "Azad" means nothing. "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" is also a neutral term, Its just the Indians who take it to heart; you won't find any name neutral, people can name their region whatever they want. So, I believe that it needs to be mentioned that Pakistan calls Indian controlled Kashmir, "Indian Occupied Kashmir."
 * Since you are so bothered about me, I will like to tell you that this computer is shared, that happens you know. So my friends may write comments usingthis computer as well. Thanks. Have a nice day and I hope that you understand my point:). Sara Ahmed - 8 Sep 2005 - 21:20 (PST)


 * In that case case, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Regarding the article on Azad Kashmir, the article does say that Azad means free or independent in Urdu. Tx --User:Deepak gupta 16:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is biased. It only gives the Indian perspective; India says that the Maharaja of Kashmir "acceded" to Indian, Pakistan does not agree to that. If we believe India than India also has accept the fact that the Rulers of Junagadh and Munawadar (in Indian Gujarat) acceded to Pakistan and India captured these states by force. Also Hyderabad, wanted to be an independent state, it too was forcibly occupied by India.

This article should be objective, and give both sides of the story. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 19, 2005. 10:38 (PST)


 * India did the same thing what u guys did; tit for tat. Soon after the Maharaja acceded Kashmir to India, Pakistan invaded it capturing half of Kashmir, so why should India spare Junagadh and Munawadar? Think about it... --User:Deepak gupta 16:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't forget about Hyderabad! I have thought about it and that is why I wrote what I wrote. You should think about what I said; both positions should be stated, you can't just give the Indian point of view. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 20, 2005. 10:42 (PST)


 * The article does Pakistan point of view (Pakistan, however, does not recognize the region as being a part of India and calls the region under Indian control, i.e. Jammu & Kashmir, as Occupied Kashmir while the region under its control is called Azad Kashmir meaning Free Kashmir, except for the separately-administered Northern Areas,). You mentioned the same thing again in the first para compelling me to rever 17:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Azad Jammu and Kashmir exists. The people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir call it that, their government calls it that; take a look at its website Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Who says Pakistan's government is undemocratic? Its not! The west, the guardians of democracy, certainly call us a democratic country:) And we are very happy with our democracy...we are freer than Indians; Indians have been brain washed by the Indian media, which shows Pakistan as a poor and conservative country, that is why Indians are surprised when they visit Pakistan and see how free and liberal it is; take a look at that too Pakistanis socialites in Pakistan. Come and take a look. You say "The Indian Constitution at that time didnt allow state forces to provide security to any foreign nation," here you contradict yourself by saying that "The Maharaja willfully aceded kashmir to India." So, India forced the Maharaja to accede to India as a pre-condition to providing help because providing help otherwise would have been against this constitution. By the way Junagadh, Munawadar and Hyderabad didn't ask for Indian help of any kind but they were occupied too. Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 21, 2005. 10:26 (PST)


 * Okay, yr arguing with the arong person. I've very little knowledge regrading the history of the entire issue. All I know is that General Pervez came to power in a military coup (highly undemocratic and I've never read any Indian newspaper), the Maharaja aceded Kashmir to India because that was the only way he could help from India (New Delhi didnt held him on gunpoint and forced him to sign the instrument of accesion... they just kept a pre-condition: want Indian help, join India. If u dont wanna join India, forget Indian help. The rest was left on the Maharaja and he preferred the 1st option. India didnt force him to do anything. He took the decision by his own will.) and Kashmir didnt ask Pakistan for any help, but still the latter sent its troops to Kashmir after the instrument of accession was signed. To end, in 1947, 43% of J&K population consisted of hindus, sikhs and buddhists, all favoring India over Pakistan. During the 1965 war, India captured most of kashmir but during the tashkent agreement it returned most of the nuslim majority areas back to Pakistan retaining Hindu-majority Jammu, muslim-majority Kashmir valley and buddhist-majority Ladakh. India favors status-quo but Pakistan claims all of Indian Kashmir including Jammu and ladakh. On wat basis? Also India held elections in J&K in 2003 and there was 65% voter turnout (even though terrorist groups boycotted the elections). I guess u know the results too, Indian National Congress and its ally People's Democratic Party won with a considerable majority while the main opposition and former ally of the BJP emerged as the single largest party. This clearly shows favorable opinion Kashmiris have towards India. To end, I think the Pakistani media is trying to brainwash the Pakistanis by continously alleging the Indian Army of carrying out abuses in J&K. --User:Deepak gupta 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing with you, just replying to an allegation you made. If you do not know about the issue then do not talk about it! General Musharaf was elected President in a refrendum! And that's exactly what Pakistan wants in Kashmir, ask the Kashmiris what they want, just what the U.N resolutions have said. India has never had plebiscite in Kashmir, I guess Nehru lied in his speeches when he said that India will conduct a plebiscite. Unlike India, Pakistanis get TV channels from all over the world; including Pakistani and many Indian channels (Star News, Zee News, NDTV, DD News.) So, we atleast know what lies your media cooks up; on the other hand you have no idea about our media since India does not let any Pakistani channels be aired in India. And the turnout in the 2003 "elections" in Indian Occupied Kashmir according to independent observers was 40% and not 65%; probably only Hindus of Kashmir voted. And if you consider "All Parties Hurriyet Conference" (the seperatist group) a terrorist organization, then why is the Indian government talking to them, inviting them to Delhi and treating them so very nicely?


 * Also, now you accept that their was a pre-condition set by India, earlier you weren't agreeing to that. Good. So the fact remains that a Hindu Maharaja rulling over a Muslim population will choose India, just like the Muslim rulers of Junagadh and Munawadar choose Pakistan, and the rulers of Bhopal and Hyderabad wanted to remain independent. Just like India occupied Junagadh and Munawadar, Bhopal and Hyderabad, Pakistan wants Kashmir because the rulers decision doesn't hold any weight in India's eyes. Thats what happened in Junagadh and Munawadar, Bhopal and Hyderabad; and that should happen in Kashmir too.


 * Also, its not the Pakistani media that is saying that the Indian Military is carrying out Human Rights Abuses, western NGOs say that too. Human Rights Crisis in Indian Occupied Kashmir


 * FYI : AAJ TV Pakistan GEO TV Pakistan - Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 22, 2005. 10:40 (PST)


 * Frankly, I was born in Kuwait and brought up in Netherlands. Ive hardly lived in India; just a few weeks every third year. So it is quite obvious for you to know more about South Asian issues than what I know. However, I do remember my father saying that the voter turnout during the state elections were more than 60% ( i guess people living in PoK were not counted as voters). Anyway, I always thought that there was a possible solution to the Kashmir dispute, but after reading yr comments I realize how complex the matter is. Talking about the referrendum, Saddam hussein carried out a similar referrendum in 2001 in which he got 98% of Iraqi votes! Pervez is a military dictator and there is no way to verify whether the referrundum was conducted freely. Ill regard the Pakistani govt as a democratic one when Pervez steps down and carries out free elections. To be frank, kashmir is draining Indian resources. The govt spends so much of money patrolling the region and it gets nothing in return except dead soldiers and more allegations. Acc to me, India should give up its claim over kashmir excluding the regions of Jammu and Ladakh.
 * To end, its quite funny to see India and Pakistan fighting like cats and dogs over an unproductive, mountainous region. I wouldnt be suprised if I see India and pakistan fighting over Antartica some time in near future. Cheers --User:Deepak gupta 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ofcourse people living in "Azad Jammu and Kashmir" were not counted as voters since it is not under Indian Occupation; they have their own elections. Also, the people who live in a country decide what constitutes as a democracy and what does not; Pakistanis are happy with what they have, democracy. Additionally, the WEST judges what constitutes as a democracy, and they are happy with what Pakistan has:) We, the Pakistanis are happy too. And it does not matter to us what you or other Indians think of our democracy.


 * I would love it of the Kashmir problem is solved and by the way, personaly, I would agree to it if Pakistan gets Kashmir valley and the rest of Kashmir, and India keeps Jammu and Ladakh. That will be fine. Also, I wanted to tell you about the real Pakistan since many Indians, like many of my Indian friends had no clue about Pakistan; their ideas about Pakistan were so strange. By the way we compete anyways since you are at Purdue and I went to IU Bloomington. Go Hoosiers! -  Dr. Ayesha Ahmed Ali, September 23, 2005. 10:12 (PST)


 * Yeah, I read an article in a magazine (not sure whether it was Newsweek or Time) few months ago on Pakistan's growing economy. I always had a very good impression of Pakistan. I just love the plays you guys make. Dhoop Kinare (i hope i spelled it right) is my all time favourite. Relations between India and Pakistan are improving and Im glad about that. But I still dont agree with you on Kashmir valley joining Pakistan. Look, PDP and the National Conference are very big parties with lots of muslim supporters even though they have close links with mainstream Indian national parties. Omar Abdullah, National Conf leader, was a former Cabinet minister during the NDA regime. Presently, two of the Indian cabinet ministers belong to the PDP. Most of the Hindus and Sikhs living in J&K voted for the INC and the BJP. Still PDP and NC emerged as the largest parties showing that a lot of non-Hindus (i.e. muslim) voted for them. Now since these parties are pro-India, by voting for these parties, the muslims in Kashmir have expressed their opinions. Regarding the Hurriyat Conference, by making efforts to hold talks with them, the Govt of India has showed that it means business. The Indian govt is treating the hurriyat nicely because they wanna settle issues peacefully. Consequence, a hurriyat leader recently alleged Pakistan's info minister of running terrorist camps in so-called azad kashmir. The Hurriyat Confernce is now splitting and New delhi's efforts are finally beginning to pay off. --User:Deepak gupta 16:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * hello, In india we get a number of pakistani channels. PTV, QTV,GEO (i think)....The PTV was blocked in India only for a brief time (during the 'Kargil' period) for obvious reasons. Otherwise there is no ban on any channels (of any country). As long as they can compete and capture viewers, they are successful. I thought it's PEMRA(Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ) that's in a tug of war with the cable operators. The operators want Indian channels for generating more adv. revenew, but the authorities have it's own 'fears' and interests. That's what I could gather from Dawn (yes Dawn!! Indians do read it too). BTW i'm a Ayaz Amir fan, though he is a bit hyper critical about your president in his views. ---Pratheepps 07:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Did a new edit
I did not agree with the line in the demographics section which blamed the demographics of the region as the problem for the Kashmir "Terrorism problem" which is highlighted as "Kashmir dispute"... I'm fairly miffed that...

b. terrorism is called "dispute" 

c. all violence is blamed on a community that held rock solid against all kinds of devious schemes to "divide and rule" as in 1948's war

plus the fact that a mass exodus of ~20k families took place in the '80s was missing.

sources? All major Indian papers. Try a google search for Kashmiri Pandits


 * the sentence...
 * "It is this complex demography of the region which has been main cause for the ongoing Kashmir dispute."
 * is back.
 * I don't know WHY would someone blame the entire community. The root cause of the problem has been two countries laying claim to the area. And the current problems in the area are because a certain government *proactively* supports covert guerilla action by non-conventional troops trained in suicidal warfare...
 * I'd say it was Kamekaze style, but that word is for a dignified death. Killing innocent schoolchildren by blowing up jeeps outside the school is not.
 * Don't know how they sleep at night.
 * I know I'm sorta rambling here, but you have to explain to me ...
 * how is the demography responsible for external terrorists infiltrating?
 * Nimishbatra 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I know I'm sorta rambling here, but you have to explain to me ...
 * how is the demography responsible for external terrorists infiltrating?
 * Nimishbatra 15:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I would like to dispute this article - Kashmir is disputed territory and not part of India. The matter is still resolved due to Indian refusal to honor UN Security Council resolution.
 * User:Siddiqui 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As per Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, J&K was declared as a state of India. The territory may be disputed, but please do remember, India administers part of the territory as Jammu and Kashmir, and we are reflecting that. The part that Pakistan governs is titled as "Azad Kashmir" . Please also see Neutral point of view. Regards, =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also do mention the UN Security Council resolution as reference. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The article Kashmir as well as this article indicate amply that Kashmir is a disputed territory. I believe the POV tag is entirely inappropriate in light of this and hence I wd be removing the tag after a week if no opposing comments are forthcoming. --Gurubrahma 09:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've copyedited the lead to maintain an NPOV. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  15:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Request a discussion here first for any remaining concerns before (repeatedly) tagging this article. Thanks. --ΜιĿːtalk 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge from India Occupied Kashmir
The region Jammu and Kashmir is exactly same as what is called 'Indian occupied kashmir' and both the articles acknowledge that. Why have two articles then? Quiet frankly I think the later article is pure propaganda and has no information value at all. This article is in much better shape and presents both Indian and Pakistani arguments reasonably. Why not simply redirect the Indian Occupied Kashmir to this article? Anand Arvind 07:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree and have given more comments on the Indian Occupied Kashmir talk page. Lost 08:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Indian occupied Kashmir article is a POV fork. -- FRCP11 14:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. IOK is a POV fork and should be made a redirect.  The name should be mentioned in the opening paragraph though. Eluchil404 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indian Occupied Kashmir does not exist for the very fact that the region is not'occupied' by India but actually belongs to India. The article Indian Occupied Kashmir should be scrapped as the term itself is incorrect.

If Indian Occupied Kashmir does not exist then the same can be said for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. That area is controlled and belongs to Pakistan. There must be at least a mention in the title that Jammu and Kashmir is Indian Occupied much like the Pakistani Kashmir article makes mention that it's half is occupied by Pakistan. And they've actually cited a source. "Jammu and Kashmir is referred to by Pakistan as           "Indian-occupied Kashmir".[1]" Where does the hyperlink take you? Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pakistan. Wow. That's like adding 'I'm a saint' to the article on Hitler and citing Mein Kampf as the source.

Merge from Terrorism in Kashmir
I oppose this merger with this article since there is a lot of information on terrorism in Kashmir that cannot just be covered in a section of the main Jammu and Kashmir article. I will remove the tag if anybody does not tell me why and how this can be just one article. Anand Arvind 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A solution might be to rename the article and call it Conflict in Kashmir or Indo-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir or something so that discussions of both terrorism and state repression could be discussed on the page. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for a soapbox afterall. Tombseye 22:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

We can discuss about the name of Terrorism in Kashmir article. But still it doesn't justify merger with the main Jammu and Kashmir article. Anand Arvind 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not justifying anything, I am merely offering up a solution to the impasse. Tombseye 22:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I am going to remove this merge tag unless somebody argues in favor of keeping it. This tag was added without leaving even an edit summary. Anand Arvind 21:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge this page with Kashmir
There are several reasons to merge this page:

1- Kashmir page and this page are supposed to be showing exactly the same subject.

2- These pages have a large overlap.

Pro-Indian Bias
This page should be organized like Kashmir page. Furthermore, this section is clearly showing pro-Indian bias.

One line in this article is priceless:

"Since then, the region has seen a prolonged, bloody conflict between militants and the Indian Army. Both the militants and the army have been accused of widespread human rights abuses [17][18], including abductions, massacres[19][20], rape [21]and looting."

While the statement is factually true, it is disingenuous. When is the last time you ever heard of the militants using rape against the army? The 2 sides are not the same in this conflict...rapes are being committed by the army against the population of Kashmir--and not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.51.114 (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is militants against unarmed Hindu civilians, militants hardly confront military - they rather evade. see this Doorvery far (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir
Hi Deepak please dont remove Karan Singh from Jammu & Kashmir, he is the would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir, please check history. His father was king he stepped down from throne and he acceded to India like so many Royals did from all the Princly States.

I disagree, he was made king of Kashmir for siding with the British against the Sikhs. THe Kashmiri's always considered him and his family an outsider people and never accepted his rule either in the past nor at present.

Thanks

08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Atulsnischal

Hi Deepak,

'''What politician are you talking about, he is the KING of all Jammu & Kashmir for gods sake. Please check the history of the state.'''

Atulsnischal 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir
So you mean to say Karan Singh is the would be Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir?! Nevermind, the very purpose of the See also section is to provide links to readers to articles on other topics related to the concerned topic. I just don't understand why would a person who would like to gain some information regarding J&K will go to an article on Karan Singh? Besides, so what if he belongs to a royal family? --Incman|वार्ता 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha.. KING of Jammu and Kashmir.. the last thing I want to know is that India is a monarchy. LOL! --Incman|वार्ता 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.

Thats all, I was just thinking the best for the people of J&K, I am not here to fight with you, please rethink and revert

Best wishes

Atulsnischal 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I know that Mr. Karan Singh has a great personality and is a good man but you have to understand the rules of Wikipedia. Adding a link to Karan Singh defeats the very purpose of the See also section and would result in a decline of Wikipedia's overall credibility. I hope you understand the problem and I would like to express my apologies for my earlier argumentative tone. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, at the same time you must realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not the right mean for all this. --Incman|वार्ता 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Atulsnischal, if you continue with your stubborn attitude, I will have to take up the matter to a Wikipedia administrator or Arbcom. --Incman|वार्ता 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

You seem to be obssed with the Jammu and Kashmir article on Wikipedia, anybody can make it out, you have got stuck and are going on and on about it, you dont respect other peoples viws too, as for me I think there should be a link to Dr Karan Singh's article here, which was just a stub, so I was trying to develop it, thats all, you are playing politics over the whole issue, please think with informational and historical point of view.....

I have also copyed this discussion with you in the Jammu and Kashmir as well as Dr Karan Singh's discussion page, just for the record that Dr Karan Singh article was discussed, as it is a legitimate discussion.

If you get time later please help in developing Dr Karan Singh's article on Wikipedia too.

Just for info only as you seem interested: Latest News on Kashmir topic today: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Thanks Cheers

Atulsnischal 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course I am obsessed with the article on J&K. As a matter of fact, a good chunk of that article is written by me (including the History section). And before calling me inconsiderate, look at yourself! Have you analyzed my arguments above in a logical way? You say: "Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state." Hello! This is an encyclopedia. Not a propaganda website. Anyways, I find this discussion a waste of time and unintellectual. So I won't take part in it anymore as I have better things to do. --Incman|वार्ता 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”
I've added the "prod" template to the article List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Incman|वार्ता 17:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir”

Atulsnischal 09:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the comprehensive List of topics which deal with "the People”, “the Culture & Heritage” and “the Land” of Jammu and Kashmir:

This List is a comprehensive list of articles on Wikipedia which deal with "the People”, “the Culture & Heritage” and “the land” of Jammu and Kashmir and it is definitely not like the Kashmir (disambiguation) Page. This list should remain on Wikipedia for people to be able to easily access all articles on different aspects of the people, culture and the area of Jammu and Kashmir.

Atulsnischal 23:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Need an article specifically on the Vale of Kashmir
Similar to articles on Jammu and Ladakh, we need an article on the Vale of Kashmir. Any suggestions?? --Incman|वार्ता 07:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-NPOV Statements
"Though Islam is practiced by 70% of population (and 95% of the population in the Kashmir Valley), the state has vibrant communities of Hindus (who constitute 66% of the population in Jammu), Buddhists (who constitute 50% of the population in Ladhakh), and Sikhs."

Why aren't the Muslim communities vibrant? Are they too busily engaged in terrorism and anti-Indian activities? Give me a break. Irtiqaa 21:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

seems like a bit of bias on the part of the person who wrote the article. I agree.. there seems to be every attempt made to shy away from the fact that the Muslims and in fact many of the other religions including Hindu, SIkh, Buddhist (Kashmiri's are united by culture) dont want to be part of india and want an end to the occupation of their lands by indian forces. They're history, culture and trade lie to the west with Pakistan and this article takes every step to try to dodge this issue... very suspicious and dilutional i think !!


 * I don't think that was implied by the person who wrote "vibrant communities," but I agree it was POV (or weasel). I have changed it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Did a new Edit
I changed a few lines in first paragaraph in which it was stated and claimed that jammu kashmir is a part of india. Actually its a disputed territory between india and Pakistan. and still struggle is going on from both sides to claim that territory


 * That point should belong to the History section. --Lokantha 04:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
There appears to have been a low-key edit war between several anonymous users over the inclusion of the phrase "Also known as Indian-occupied Kashmir" or something similar at random points in this article. The last anon left the phrase smack dab in the middle of the first sentence of the article. Without trying to silence the Pakistani viewpoint, I took the liberty of removing this phrase, just as a point of proper grammar. My question is as follows: would the inclusion of this phrase--unsourced and misspelled--at random points in the article count as vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunttthetroll (talk • contribs) 21:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

last time I checked, both India and Pakistan have nuclear weopons and have gone to war over the state 3 times. Also the united nations has passed a resolution in 1948 calling for a plebiscite for the people of Kashmir to decide their future. So for all intents and purpose, its a disputed region.

Fair use rationale for Image:Jammu and KashmirSeal.jpg
Image:Jammu and KashmirSeal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Azad Flag
User 194.215.183.65 has been removing information related to India and inserting the flag of Azad Kashmir. I believe it is being in bad taste which doesn't help improve the article in any way. I wish the user would explain the logic of his actions here. -- S3000  ☎  18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Urdu & Hindi
I have noticed that the name of the state is written in both english and urdu and there is nothing wrong with that ,but i also believe that the name should also be written in hindi as it is india's national language and as it will help maintain neutrality

Harshabob 06 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.11.114 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Official language(s)
I've noticed some users removing Kashmiri script from the article,claiming that only Urdu is the official language of the state. To my knowledge this, I'm afraid is incorrect, as the language recognised by the Constitution of India (in the VIII Schedule) as the language of the Jammu and Kashmir State. Urdu (being the other official language) however is the dominant language of the state, and is used in schools and institutions. One has to understand that Jammu and Kashmir comprises of other regions including Ladakh, Jammu etc. where Urdu isn't the dominant language. Please correctme if I'm incorrect. S3000 ☎  09:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution of JK declares Urdu the official language.,. i will revert your edits per this source. Please dont add any other language unless it becomes official. Noor Aalam (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Kindly fix the Images for both pages of Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir)
Kindly download the images and properly cite and give fair use rationale. These images are important - of the two page document which shows the accession of the state of Jammu and kashmir to India by its former Maharajah Hari Singh.


 * Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir) to the Country / Dominion of India

There is an image for page 1 and then there is another for page 2 of the treaty/accession document, kindly give proper fair use rationale as people seem to be attacking this image and removing it from wikipedia.

Atulsnischal (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chart
I would like to add the following: But I don't know if I should, or where it should be? Any comments, if not then I think I should put it in the Economy or Demographics section. Please and Thank You! Note: please answer here on the talk page, but also on My talk page. -- Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count ) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian attrocities, rape, terrorism and ethnic cleansing
The indian occupied Jammu & Kashmir has experienced considerable abuses at the hands of the occupying indian army, paramilitary forces and the indian government which suppresses news emanating from the state to the outside world and turns a blind eye to the abuses. The article should include mention of the gross injustices and human rights violations committed by india in the state on the defenseless and peaceful Kashmiri people.


 * Refer to Kashmir dispute. Feel free to add any information you have as long it is backed by reputable sources. --Emperor Genius (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see the last para of the history section. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts by typing ~ . If you cannot support your claims by providing reliable sources, then these would be considered disgruntled rantings only. The so called defenceless and peaceful Kashmiri people have killed around 11,000 persons since 1989 and have forced the Kashmiri Pandits to leave their homeland. Regarding the claim of ethnic cleansing bit, this much info is enough that the population figures (both in numbers as well as percentage of total population) for Kasmiri Muslims have actually gone up since 1947. Shovon (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Indian blockade of the United Nation resolution
how come no mention of india's refusal to allow the holding of a plebiscite in indian-occupied Kashmir on wether to remain in india or join the Kashmiri's natural homeland in Pakistan whom they would most likely vote for. This is an important aspect of the Kashmir dispute that is often overlooked, for it is india that has blocked this resolution (the 2nd oldest resolution of the United Nations), and it is india's refusal that hindered any prospects of peace in the region or bringing about any kind of resolution to the Kashmir dispute.


 * Again, see article on Kashmir dispute. --Emperor Genius (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, sign your comments by pressing ~ . The pre-condition for holding a plebiscite is that both parties would have to withdraw their troops from the disputed area, which Pakistan has refused to do. By the way, who has given you the idea that Kashmiris would like to join Pakistan? They might want an independent Kashmir, the idea of which is disliked by Pakistan. Moreover, the Muslim minority Jammu and Ladakh regions will in all probability want to remain with India. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

well the kashmiris have shown in the past few days what they think of you indians look at the news fool86.153.132.156 (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your message speaks for yourself. This is one of the traits of the POV pushers, be it from the Indian or Paki side, that they won't even try to understand what is being written. Read my sentences again and then come back. By the way, what makes you think that all are having the same amount of grey matters, comparable to yourself, in their brains? Shovon (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

the paki side is better than hindu killers who sacrifice there kids infront of a monkey god named hanuman p.s dont call me paki again dalit hindu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.154.87 (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No mention of protests
This article needs to mention the protests that are occurring in the state. Of course there is an article dedicated to that, but these events need to be mentioned in this article. I added a link to an article about - but this removed by another editor. I don't see we need a citation to link to another wiki article. Especially as the this article notes that "On 11 August 2008, 50,000 to 2,50,000 Kashmiri Muslim protesters attempted to march across the LoC to Muzaffarabad, in violation of curfew orders" Pahari Sahib  06:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentioning protest is one thing and 'leaning against Indian integration' is another thing. Your change was extending a sentence containing 'leaning towards Indian integration' by using 'until ...'. So, basically your changes suggest that Kashmiris are now leaning against Indian integration. That is unsourced POV. The above quotation from the unrest article does not support that. However, you can add information about protests in a separate sentence without any POV. I don't have any objection on that. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The protests seem to belie the notion that the Kashmiris are *now* leaning towards integration, I am not talking about what I believe should happen nor am I trying to make any judgements (good or bad) about the Indian administration. The article cited is from the year 2000, a lot can happen in eight years. It may be the case the protests could all blow over and things change again. But surely the article should reflect what is happening now. Pahari Sahib  06:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering the protesters were marching toward the UN mission - I would think they were marching against the Indian State - every one knows that - what's the point of denying it? TheBlueKnight (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Revert of my edit
To User:Pahari Sahib: Please tell me why my edit is not neutrally written? rev diff? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay this bit "The territory is disputed between Pakistan and India and it is referred to by Pakistan as Indian-occupied Kashmir. Conversely, India refers to Pakistan-administered Kashmir as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir."


 * Was changed to "The Pakistan-administered region is known in Pakistan as Azad Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in India respectively"


 * This article is supposed to be about the Indian state, the fact that both India and Pakistan call each other's part of Kashmir occupied seems sufficient to note. However your edit changed this to only mention Pakistan's part of Kashmir in the context of occupation. This seems to me to be unbalanced and should be addressed. Pahari Sahib  14:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmn, so if what Pakistan calls the Indian-administered region is the case for balance, why not add it to balance it? =Nichalp   «Talk»=


 * Okay :-) I'll give it a go. Pahari Sahib  15:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have copyedited it further since PoK was not the same as the territory held by Azad Kashmir. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

void about erstwhile areas of jand k state..
i am contributing the following table..it needs citation though it states well known facts..if this could be of use to upgrade the jand k article, use it..else ignore: table created by me for clarity..Cityvalyu (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

please also make a mention of the amarnath yatra and amarnath land transfer controversyCityvalyu (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Puppet states
user:92.2.116.251 added the Category:Puppet states to this article. Looking at the other states included in this category makes me think that J&K is out of place, as does looking at the Puppet states article. But at the very least it should be talked about before a label like that be applied. What do people think?--Keithonearth (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Puppet states are 'independent' countries that are in reality controlled by another more powerful country. Kashmir however, is claimed to be a territory/state under both Pakistan and India. Deavenger (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Displacement
Apart from 6,00,000 Hindus, 9,000 Sikhs have also been displaced in the last 18 years. Should add that too. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080304/j&k.htm#7 --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Yeah, I think this should be added also. Deavenger (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Kashmir train.jpg
The image File:Kashmir train.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New CM
Please add the name of chief minister Mr. Umer Abdullah. after election he became the chief minister on 5th january, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.201.165.137 (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ It has been incorporated into the article. SBC-YPR (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the hatnote
Over the past week, a large amount of irrelevant information has been added to this article, which ought to have been added to the Kashmir page instead. Please, let's get this straight : as the hatnote says, this article is about Indian-administered Kashmir. By that definition, it is clear that it includes only the area administered by India at present, irrespective of the area it claims (which ought to be stated on Kashmir conflict and not here). Other editors and myself have been reverting these edits, or moving them to the appropriate pages, and will continue to do so. However, a request to evreyone editing this article : please make the job of improving this article easier by making constuctive edits, and adding only relevant information. Please pause and read the hatnote before editing the page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

History
I have moved some of the History section to the main article. Most of that section dealt with the history of Kashmir prior to the establishment of Jammu, and hence could not be construed as the history of Jammu and Kashmir as such. If anyone has objections to this, please raise them here. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Photo of Indian Army Armoured Vehicles in Siachen
The article shows a photo which purports to show armoured vehicles of Indian Army in Siachen. There can be no armoured vehicles at altitudes of 15-21,000 feet as in the area of Siachen glacier. More so wheeled vehicles which are shown in the photograph. These are probably vehicles under trials by the army somewhere in Kashmir in winters. One of the vehicles clearly displays a note on the windshield stating 'ARMY TRIALS'. Moreover one of the vehicles is from VECTRA. Since India Army does not at present have any vehicles from Vectra, these are probably vehicles on some trials.

The photograph caption is misleading and should be amended.

Harri 04 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.142.188 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
The word "between" at the end of first paragraph should be changed to "among" - three countries listed, not two. Vewcaere (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC) VEW Jul 22, 2009

Controversy?
This article is not bound by the style on the Northern Areas article, and neither should the addition of POV material on that article be any reason to add it here. I have reverted to the previous version which was arrived at by consensus long back. Also, the hatnote makes it clear that this article is about the area administered by India (emphasis supplied), and under India's administration this region is considered a state. It is the whole of the Kashmir region that is disputed territory, and issues relating to the dispute should be mentioned on the Kashmir conflict page - where there is a separate article for it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a 'see also Kashmir Conflict' in the history section of this article and done the same in the Azad kashmir and Northern areas article as there is no need for continually adding a 'dispute' section to all three articles as a separate detailed article already exits. Khokhar (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is the name of the whole region
So much that UN Security Council resolutions refer to it as the "State of Jammu and Kashmir". The title of this page is misleading since it implies that only the India-controlled part of the territory is called "Jammu and Kashmir" Ladril (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

I'm renaming this and the page for the whole Kashmir region. Ladril (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go through WP:MOVE, WP:PLACE and WP:CON before moving a page. Oniongas (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) article covers the whole region prior to partition. I don't think it's necessary to specify that J&K is a Indian state.--Keithonearth (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article, as per the hatnote, covers the area under Indian administration post-Partition and the Indo-Pakistan War of 1947. At present, it is an Indian state and hence, the need to specify the same within the article. However, the title does not require it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jammu and Kashmir is still the name of the whole region, regardless of partition. I don't understand why people here insist otherwise. Is there a talk page where this has been discussed before? I haven't been able to find it.


 * As far as I know, the territory is divided into four areas:


 * 1. Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir
 * 2. Azad Jammu and Kashmir
 * 3. Federally Administered Northern Areas
 * 4. Aksai Chin


 * Plus all UN documents refer to the whole region as "Jammu and Kashmir". So my edits need to be kept to avoid confusion. Jammu and Kashmir is the name of a whole region and of an Indian state. See http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf for the UN designation. Ladril (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The usefulness of this is that when one does search for "Jammu and Kashmir" one is automatically redirected to the Indian state page (this is systemic bias and also leads to a lot of confusion). When I typed in Jammu and Kashmir I was expecting to find an article on the whole region. There needs to be a clearer distinction in the titles and a disambiguation page that leads to this page, to the entire region page, and to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir page, at least. Ladril (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There already exists a disambiguation page with the above characteristics at Kashmir (disambiguation), which is also mentioned in the hatnote of the present article. How does this lead to a systemic bias? The previous discussions on naming the article are archived here and here. The present names of Kashmir-related articles are largely as a result of follow-up from these discussions. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it may lead to systemic bias since it seems to lend support to India's claim that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir is part of India. As for your links, note taken, but I have to insist that "Jammu and Kashmir" is a widely used name for the entire region, and thus it ought to be stated somewhere on this page that the name Jammu and Kashmir is not exclusive to India. What I propose is changing the hatnote to something like this:


 * "For the entire region, see Kashmir, for the Pakistan Administered region, see Azad Jammu and Kashmir..." and so on. Ladril (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But doesn't the disambiguation page itself state all of the above (i.e. the proposed reworded hatnote)? One of the purposes of having a disambiguation page is to avoid cluttering up hatnotes. As to the the point that Jammu and Kashmir is used to refer to the entire region, perhaps it could be mentioned on the Kashmir article - which at present covers the entire region. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly. The main problem I see is that a search for "Jammu and Kashmir" leads directly to this page. What I believe needs doing is to change things so that both the searches for "Kashmir" and "Jammu and Kashmir" lead to the disambiguation page. Unfortunately, I'm not savvy enough to code this. Ladril (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you confusing yourself Mr. Ladril. Check this Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), POK, Indian occupied Kashmir, and here are all of them - List of Jammu and Kashmir related articles. There are articles describing each and everything. and there is no point in renaming Kashmir to state of Jammu and Kashmir. These things are already covered. Oniongas (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, I'm not confused. Jammu and Kashmir is a correct and widely used name for the whole disputed region. See http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552307/Jammu_and_Kashm%C4%ABr.html for a source (and also the UN map above and all the UN resolutions which refer to the whole territory as "Jammu and Kashmir"). "Kashmir" is also correct, but is a shortened common name. The explanation does not need to be removed from the page any more than the designation "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" should be removed from the United Kingdom page. Ladril (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PLACE The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. I guess this is sufficient to end the conversation. but anywayz, I dont deny the fact that Kashmir is also called Jammu and Kashmir, but Kashmir as a region or valley cant be called Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir is very common name than J&K. Google gives 14,900,000 result for Kashmir while as for Jammu and Kashmir it gives 4,180,000. Rest Kashmir is Indian state and all, that is elaborated in all the articles in details, so there is no need to mention that in title. what say? Oniongas (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that's not enough. The WP:PLACE guideline refers to article names. It's not a straitjacket that prevents us from listing widely used alternative names in the article body. Using your logic the designation "Myanmar" should be completely removed from the Burma article, just because "Burma" is more common in English. That's not a correct way to operate, in my view. I can understand you wanting to keep the current article names as they are, but your last revert on the Kashmir page is way over the top. I ask again: do you want a third party to mediate? Ladril (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Here are excerpts from WP:PLACE that refer to the topic at hand: "The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses" and "It is Wikipedia convention to emphasize alternate names at first use, normally in the first line". Ladril (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm this is a good point, if you look at maps of the area like this UN map, the whole area is referred to as Jammu and Kashmir. Perhaps Kashmir (disambiguation) could be moved to Jammu and Kashmir - and the current Jammu and Kashmir article moved back to Jammu and Kashmir (state of India) or similar. Pahari Sahib  21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed a factual error in the demographics section: which currently reads 'In Ladakh, Buddhists constitute about 46% of the population, the remaining being Muslims.'

However the latest census data (sataed below) gives the proportions as 47.40% Muslim, 6.22% Hindu and – 45.87% Buddhist

the accuracy of this statement is important not to imply and majority (over 50%) of anyone religious group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallgareth (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Indian Administered Kashmir
Just to follow on from the above, most media outlets refer to the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as Indian-administered Kashmir. I am not asking for this page to be moved to that title, but surely this needs to be noted in the lead section as it is a common name for the areas under Indian admin. For example looking at a UNHCR report on this region refers to it as Indian Administered Kashmir (as opposed to Jammu and Kashmir used for the entire region - see map). Also media outlet such as CNN, BBC, ABC News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation all say this. Pahari Sahib 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * strongly dispute this POV pushing by Pahari after being asked to do this by a banned editor Nangparbat. UN refers to this are as Jammu and Kashmir, all UN resolutions call this area Jammu and Kashmir, UNMOGIP calls it J & K , Encyclopedia Brittanica calls it ditto .  when do media outlets decide the name of a place ???  their are many more instances where all media outlets have called this area Jammu and Kashmir, , , , , UNHCR report on Human rights in the area calls it Jammu and Kashmir too  furthermore google maps calls this area Jammu and Kashmir Wikireader41 (talk)
 * furthermore recent EU resolution on this area refers to this area as Jammu and Kashmir too . as such the phrase 'Indian administered Kashmir' is a minority view  and does not need to be given undue weight per WP policies.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not make this edit after being asked to, provide a diff to prove this. Furthermore if we actually look at the refs you have given it does not support what you claim - the first ref you gave the UN Map is the same one I provided - the UNHCR refers to the whole area as Jammu and Kashmir - the document makes this obvious. The second ref you provide unmogip showing a picture of a UN Peace-keeper on the Pakistani side of the border says "UNMOGIP peacekeepers observe the Line of Control that separates India and Pakistan in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Bhimbar UN Field Station, Pakistan."


 * However the third ref britannica does refer to the India state as Jammu and Kashmir. The fourth ref from the BBC says "In 1947-8 India and Pakistan fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir. Under United Nations' supervision, they agreed to a ceasefire" again referring to the whole region as J&K. The fifth ref refers to the "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir". The sixth ref refers to "India's Jammu and Kashmir state." The seventh ref initially refers to "demonstrators in Kashmir", then "Indian Kashmir's summer capital of Srinagar" it only says Jammu and Kashmir towards the end of the article when it says "Muslims in the south of Jammu and Kashmir state have been attacked". The eight ref says "in the Himalayan region and Jammu and Kashmir". The ninth ref from the UNHCR does indeed say "Jammu and Kashmir" when referring to the Indian state. The tenth ref Google Maps searches for settlements, since there is a town called Jammu it goes there. The final ref the UN's Draft report on Kashmir: present situation and future prospects refers to the whole region as Jammu and Kashmir, for instance it says "the territory which constituted the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir is currently administered in separate parts by the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of China". "Indian administered Kashmir" is just a neutral way of referring to the area administered by India to avoid ambiguity and is not a "minority view" and is not used to disparage India. So I don't see how you could think this is POV pushing. Pahari Sahib  21:50, 19 August 2009(UTC)
 * There is no POV in calling Kashmir as Indian Administrated Kashmir. Since the Kashmir is a disputed state and distributed illegally or legally (or against peoples wishes) between India and Pakistan. So its fair enough to referring it as Indian Administrated state or Pakistan Administrated state. (Off the records If someone asks me I would use term India Occupied Kashmir or Pakistan occupied Kashmir). Oniongas (talk)
 * absolutrely Indian occupied kashmir has strong wahhabi POV. we should stick to the name Jammu and Kashmir as it is mostly used by UN. EU and Google maps and most media outlets.  that the territory is disputed is well documented in the articles.  The article is about jammu and Kashmir state which is a well described geographic entity.  who administers what part is of secondary importance.  we don not call USA 'Democratic administered USA' or Pakistan 'American administered Pakistan' ;-).  no country/ state name anywhere specifies who administers the place at any given point in time which can obviously change over time. Wikireader41 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * also word administered has inherent POV. what if I say it is Indian administered kashmir and pakistan misadministered Kashmir.  would that be acceptable ???  different people will have different views whether this state is administered/ maladministered/ occupied/ raped by India or Pakistan.  best to avoid such language especially in the lede. Wikireader41 (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Is Jammu and Kashmir part of Pakistan or India
Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory and it must not be attributed as part of India. Pakistan says it as India Occupied Kashmir. So, it must be clear and verified through authentic sources that is Jammu and Kashmir and independent state, a legally owned state of India or Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matrixology (talk • contribs) 13:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed extensively in the past and the present wording has been arrived at through consensus. Please refer earlier discussions on this page and in the archives. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This article refers to Jammu and Kashmir being a state in India. I don't believe the UN recognizes Indian-occupied Kashmir as just another state of India. You should at least make a reference to this, or to the fact that this is disputed. The UN has never officially resolved the conflict between Pakistan and India, thus to call one side "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" and the other "Jammu and Kashmir, state in India" is definitely lopsided, and most importantly, incorrect. India maintains close to 700,000 troops, and had militarily occupied it long before the insurgency began in 1989. This article contributes to Indian political propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * De jure or de facto is a thing I can't answer. Fact is Jammu and Kashmir are better off belonging to neither one.  [But that might consist of POV...]  Qwrk (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Jammu and Kashmir (one area part of Kashmir region) is neither apart of India or Pakistan it is a internationally recognised disputed territory.Who future was suppose to be decided by plebiscite after the 1949 UN backed ceasefire to be part of India or Pakistan.But this never has happened and India annexed it in 1957.

Mughalnz (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The disputed status of the territory is clearly mentioned in the lead section. As Mughalnz has pointed out, the issue was supposed to be resolved by means of a plebiscite, which was never carried out. The territory was not 'annexed' in 1957, but was rather ceded to India in 1947 itself by its then ruler, Hari Singh. Further details regarding the disputed status are mentioned in a separate Kashmir conflict article, and discussing them here would be inappropriate as the entire Kashmir area is disputed (which includes Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan as well). Regards, SBC-YPR (talk.) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * the accession is also disputed since as it was done in duress ,like i said Kashmir region is disputed territory http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm whose future was suppose to be decided by a plebicite in which  the indian govenment agreed to even  after the accession (if ligitmate  or not ) but later drops plans for plebiscite   completely

and like SBC-YPR said it is best to go to Kashmir conflict page .SBC-YPR inconclusion niether part of india or pakistan and internaitonally recognised disputed territory like rest of the region.thanks Mughalnz (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mughalnz (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
The first line of the article reads "Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost state of India.". What does that suppose to mean? If it is a disputed territory then how can anyone call it a state of India or any other country. These are totally contradicting statements. Officially it is not state or part of any country. So instead of writing "northernmost state of India", it should be "Jammu and Kashmir is a disputed territory between (what ever countries involved) and located in (whatever)" 119.153.21.147 (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If anybody reading this article was unaware of the fact that Jammu and Kashmir is internationally recognized as 'disputed territory' they would be forgiven for understading Jammu and Kashmir to be a northern state of India, which it is not. The article makes no real attempt to make it clear to the reader that the area is disputed territory and with regards to its politics this is the understanding that every reader should come away with. This is the first time I have seen such an inaccurate account from Wikipedia. It is not a state in India - part of Kashmir of Kashmir is ruled by Pakistan and another part by India - but it never merged with India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bp160799 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jammu and kashmir page
should this be on the page

indian and Pakistan positions
[edit] Indian position Post 1947 India's position

Maharaja Hari Singh, King of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir agreed to Governor-General Mountbatten's[5][6] suggestion to sign the Instrument of Accession India demanded accession in return for assistance. After accession, India recovered part of the territory of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir east of the present Line of Control from the tribal invaders. India claimed that the whole territory of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir had become Indian territory (India's official posture) due to the accession, it claims the whole region including Pakistan controlled Kashmir territory as its own. Pakistan has a different perspective on this interpretation. [edit] Pakistan position Predominant Religions in NW British India 1909

The Pakistan Declaration of 1933 had envisioned the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as one of the "five Northern units of India" that were to form the new nation of Pakistan, on the basis of its Muslim majority. India has a different perspective on this interpretation.Mughalnz (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

i am not going to add it but want your opinionMughalnz (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

ETHINIC CLEANSING OF KASHMIRI PANDITS
In Jammu and Kashmir, India, the violent Islamic insurgency has specifically targeted the Hindu Kashmiri Pandit minority and 400,000 have either been murdered or displaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneworld4405 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Done by a hindu governer they replace all pandits from kashmir so that they can manipulate militiry in the kashmir and allows them to keep on violence there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.184.226 (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Zeeshanali092, 17 September 2010
please link in this page Government college of engineering and technology of jammu in education para of this page as square bracketed link as the wiki page is available...just change it as [ Government College of Engineering and Technology, Jammu]

thks

Zeeshanali092 (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Shovon (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Demographics: Shia Muslims
I can find nothing about the portions of the different Muslim denominations here. But that is an interesting matter. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal_of_addition_of_India_to_WP_Central_Asia
Hello, there is currently a debate underway to see whether India should be included in WikiProject Central Asia. Not many people have contributed so far, and as Kashmir/Ladakh is one of the areas with Central Asian influence in question, I would like to ask all editors with a background knowledge of this region to participate in the debate here. Many Thanks. --92.12.69.168 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 171.68.46.175, 15 February 2011
Jammu was founded by Raja Jambu Lochan in 14th century BC and is named after him. Your article states that it was founded by Ramchandra 1 and named after jamwa mata, which is incorrect.Please correct it as soon as possible.

171.68.46.175 (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have a reliable source, please make a new edit request with that information Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading locator map of J&K
Current locator map used in more than 50 pages misleads fellow Indians. It even contradicts other maps including India locator map File:India_location_map.svg. Please join discussion here Jammu and Kashmir state location map.svg No information is better than wrong information. How can Azad Jammu Kashmir and Aksai chin can have same colour as Himachal pradesh of India? Avoided blue (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 14.96.33.191, 19 February 2011
The city of jammu was founded by raja jambulochan(14th century BC) and is named after him. Please refer to the following link http://books.google.com/books?id=OLvIvL5dcOQC&pg=PA62&dq=jambulochan+jammu&hl=en&ei=9MJfTfquB4PTrQeGyZz8AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jambulochan%20jammu&f=false read page 62. Moreover, refer to the article on jammu in wikipedia.

14.96.33.191 (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That's actually not what the book says at all—in fact, it says that this is a common belief, but is most likely not correct based on other historical evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The city of jammu was founded by Raja Jambulochan and is named after him.. Please read page 521 in the following link http://books.google.com/books?id=slQE3AJ9skQC&pg=PA521&dq=jammu+history+jambu+lochan&hl=en&ei=mTisTcbUDIevrAfCkP2mCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=jammu%20history%20jambu%20lochan&f=false. Or simply type jammu in books.google.com and read any book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.16.183 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request for Flag from 98.225.193.150 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The flag is that of the National Conference political party and not of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Please remove this flag as representing the geographical region. 98.225.193.150 (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: No, it's not. A search of both the political party and the region show that the description of the picture is incorrect; I'm investigating it right now, but it looks like someone recently falsely changed the description on Commons. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of contents in spite of sources provided as irrelevenat
Hi, the sources and contents mention history of Kashmir valley. How is that irrelevant? I think this is high time people get out of mentality that history began with Alaxander and otherwise before invasions pagan lived on trees. Thisthat2011 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is neither about the Kashmir valley nor about the historical region of Kashmir (which has a separate article). Its scope is only restricted to the modern (post-1947) political entity. The information that was deleted is undue as it is beyond the scope of this article. Separate articles exist for Kashmir and History of Kashmir; perhaps the additions would be more appropriate there. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If this article is for "the modern (post-1947) political entity" the information about Mughal Emperor Akbar, First Anglo-Sikh War, etc. should be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed&mdash;the information about Akbar etc. will probably have to go. However, the content about the first AS War and the former princely state could be retained, since they pertain to the history of the period immediately prior to the current political entity (in order to avoid abruptness and provide context). The rest of the stuff ought to be mentioned in detail on the History of Kashmir page. BTW, you seem to have restored the text again instead of removing further irrelevant content&mdash;could you please clarify as to why you did that? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's fine then, we could remove the history which is not immediately connected to the perent entity of J&K. Well I had waited 3-4 days for your reply beyond which I thought you might have agreed to the point and were no longer interested in replying. Anyways, you could remove data as already discussed. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect text of UN Security Council Resolution on Jammu and Kashmir
The article incorrectly quotes the UN security Council Resolution on Kashmir. The first article of the first UN tresolution requires the Pakistan remove its regular and irregular forces which have enterd Jammu and Kashmir. The removal of Indian forces is not required by the UN resolution. Please correct this text in the main article.Chibber (talk)chibber —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC).

Map of religions of IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir)
It exist a map in english of religions of Indian Occupied Kashmir. I've no account on en:wikipedia, so i can't modify this article. If somebody is interesting, help yourself;-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.39.254.107 (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Now why is it that "a map of religions of jammu and kashmir" only shows the geographical portion of Jammu and Kashmir which is the functional State territory of the Indian state of J&K? and why obsess about religion? An ethno-linguistic map of the entire region of J&K will be far more pertinent. That map will show, obviously, the great extent to which ethnic Punjabi Muslims have migrated into the part of AJK (Azad Kashmir) under Administrated by Pakistan. It will show that the original Kashmiri linguistic regions of Pakistani Administrated areas have seriously been altered/disturbed by the introduction of very large numbers of ethnic Punjabis and Pathans into formarly Kashmiri/Tribal dominated areas of J&K under Pakistani Administartion. Such a map will also show the consequence of blatent ethnic/religious cleansing undertaken by Kashmiri mussalmans in the Jehlum valley. The tragedy for the people of J&K is not religios demographics, but the unscrupulous use of such demographics to uspur land and resources from weaker ethnicities such as the Hindkos, the Kashmiri Pundits, the Ahmadiyas,and the muslim Kashmiris themselves by Muslim Punjabis and Pathans under State sponsered ethnic cleansing in Pakistan.Some times I wonder if there were actually a plebicite in all of J&K, and only ethnically native Kashmiri, Pundits, Hindco etc. speakers be allowed to vote in that plebicite, excluding all Punjabi and Pathan mussalmans, - I wonder how such a plebicite will turn out. Chibber (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

False View of India
India is Claiming that Pakistan has occupied some Part of Jammu & Kashmir is an Indian Corrupted view and Very Funny view. Pakistan has Never Occupy But has Azad (Free) the 30% Parts of Jammu & Kashmir Known 'Azad Jammu Kashmir (AJK) and Gilgit-Baltistan'. Only India has illegal Occupied 60% Parts of Jammu & Kashmir Since 1947, which Pakistan refers 'Indian Occupied Kashmir' (IOK). (In Urdu: Bharati Maqbouza Kashmir) and 10% Part is Administrated by China (Aksai Chin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.99.116.203 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

+ Bilaspur–Mandi–Leh line
Please add a brief mention to the Economy section of the proposed Bilaspur–Mandi–Leh line next to the Jammu-Baramulla section

--92.14.188.24 (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to supply the text you would like to add along with relaible sources supporting the text. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text.
 * Along with the Jammu-Baramulla project under construction, another railway project, the Bilaspur–Mandi–Leh line has been proposed. Once completed, it is expected to become the highest railway track in the world overtaking the current record of China's Qinghai-Tibet Railway, and is expected to end the isolation of the Ladakh region from the rest of India.

--92.14.188.24 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source supports the first sentence, but not the second. Do you have something which supports the claim about highest railroad, the Chinese railroad and ending the isolation of Ladakh? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

IoK
Rvd4life, the term PoK is being kept in this article and IoK being removed... please don't remove this again. See the Azad Kashmir article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I still feel that the term "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" should be present on the Gilgit Baltistan article. The term is used for the entire region in India.  --Rvd4life (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) That is not the justification for removing it from here, 2) Azad Kashmir actually also refers to the whole area in Pakistan and was the administratively the whole area till 1970 too. That covers it. You can still discuss it on the relevant talk page though. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just for your info, I have reinstated it on the GB page as your agreement on the talk page has been undermined by a Pakistani editor adding the 'IOK' term. We just can't tolerate double standards here. Remove the 'IoK' term and I have no objections to the 'PoK' term being removed. --Rvd4life (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen that and did not revert your edit. But removing IoK (which is an alternate name of this) from this article and still keeping PoK here was actually something more than double standards. -- lTopGunl (talk</b>) 14:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was an unintended edit, as I had not noticed the PoK section. It was not meant to be in bad faith. Regards --Rvd4life (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging, I brought this up because other editors might not know similarly how things are being treated in this article when they make edits to GB or AJK, so WP:AGF instead of calling it double standards. Hopefully all is settled now. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan Does Not Claim Kashmir
The article wrongly asserts that Pakistan claims the disputed region as its own. In fact, Pakistan only regards the area as a Disputed Territory, whose future must be determined by a UN sponsored plebiscite. Hence why Azad Kashmir is not a province of Pakistan. Only India claims the entire region of Kashmir; Pakistan does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. Please do a research of the topic to know more. Pakistan's position includes its territorial claim on Kashmir. Azad Kashmir is not a province but rather a federally-administered political entity with its own political structure. On the other hand, Gilgit-Baltistan has a province-like status.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you know what dispute means, even if we take it your way? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Mar4D, here, I did some research as you requested:


 * This is the clear, and official stance of Pakistan, as stated by its Mission to the United Nations( http://www.pakun.org/kashmir/history.php):
 * "Pakistan upholds the right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. These resolutions of 1948 and 1949 provide for the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite for the determination of the future of the state by the people of Jammu and Kashmir. "


 * And this is the from the Indian Mission to the UN (http://www.un.int/india/2005/ind1183.htm):
 * "Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of the Union of India." (which also includes Chinese-administered parts of Kashmir)


 * So clearly, Pakistan regards the territory as a disputed one, whose resolution depends on a plebiscite - not the blind and unequivocal transfer of the region to Pakistani control. India, on the other hand, regards it to be undisputed Indian territory, and that Pakistan should vacate Kashmir. Pakistan's claims for the region are not simply the converse of the Indian one. India claims the entire region, but that doesn't mean Pakistan does too.

Devanagri script for Kashmiri Language
The Kashmiri name of Jammu and Kashmir is only written in Devanagri ((Kashmiri: जोम त कशीर) - it is improper to use only the Devanagri script without using the Nastaliq/Urdu script as well, since both are recognized as legitimate alphabets for the Kashmiri language. Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Devanagri script is rarely used, and almost entirely confined to the exiled Pandit community, while the vast majority of Kashmiri writings are done in the Nastaliq/Urdu script.

Please add the Urdu/Nastaliq script to the Kashmiri name for the region: جوم تِ کشیر — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.183.0.122 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

'exiled Pandit community' - nice euphemism for the genocide perpetrated on the native Hindus by pakistan backed terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.241.114.202 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I can't find the place where the Devanagri script is in the article, could you point me to it? Vaca  tion  9  13:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Suspicious editing of individual
This IP address (131.183.0.122) is causing disruptive edits. Can someone stop this editor from this nationalistic POV push? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.16.122 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sir, I have noticed that the autosigned IP address (209.188.16.122) has engaged in disruptive edits on Pakistan-related pages. Please cease adding Hindi script to Pakistan-related articles. Thank you!Willard84 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Willard84

Freedom House
Should the section that deals with Freedom Houses' rating of Jammu and Kashmir as "partly free" really be followed by the comment that Pakistani controlled Azad Kashmir is rated "not free"? The information about Azad Kashmir is irrelevant and seems like someone is promoting a nationalist POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.94.65 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Source?
The article currently says: "″India has control of 60% of the area of the former Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir (Jammu, Kashmir Valley, and Ladakh); Pakistan controls 30% of the region (Gilgit–Baltistan and Azad Kashmir). China occupied 10% (Aksai Chin) of the state in 1962.″" Do we have a reliable source that supports it? As fair as my knowledge goes, the percentage isn't as High given that India claims Aksai Chin (under Chinese control) as a part of Jammu and Kashmir. If there is no credible source that supports then I think it's better to remove the claim and not re-instate any such thing until we find a reliable source. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I found one source that corroborates the claim and looks reliable.
 * Any comment would be highly appreciated. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Any comment would be highly appreciated. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Map
89.240.237.161 would prefer to use File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto) (disputed hatched).svg instead of File:India Jammu and Kashmir locator map.svg. Even ignoring the POV issues for the moment, the latter is clearly superior: Firstly, it gives the districts within the state, and secondly, the Siachen Glacier is not part of the Indian state, for all I can tell. For these reasons I have reverted to the latter map. Huon (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Problematic numbers
I have reverted Lifelessboy's latest edits for a couple of reasons: Thus the edit was not an improvement. Huon (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) It broke the grammar in the lead.
 * 2) The pre-1941 census data was not based on the given sources.
 * 3) The colums in the religious demographics table were changed for no good reason. Previously religions were sorted by number of adherents; there's no reason to deviate from that.
 * 4) The number formatting had become inconsistent even within that single table.
 * 5) The "Kashmiri man" image was removed for no good reason.

Military-Civilian ratio
About 0.5 million Indian army troops are located inside the Valley proper which has a population of 2 million. This ratio of 25% makes Kashmir Valley one of the world's most militarised society on earth.

Please add this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.89.247 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2013
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The person who is trying to get you to indicate the number of Indian army troops inside the Kashmir Valley seems to have a nationalistic agenda. At no time has the Government of India for obvious security reasons disclosed the number of troops in the Kashmir Valley and it is only they who could ever confirm what the number is...not some people with agendas wanting to grossly exaggerate numbers. 500,000 troops out of 1.2 million would be unbelievable on its face therefore you do need a reliable source and the person who asked for this edit clear has none. It appears the edit request was made with a nationalistic agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.247.160 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Indian administered Kashmir removed as reference link is broken
I've removed the sentence ', whereas some international agencies such as the United Nations call it Indian-administered Kashmir.[4]' as the link itself is broken and no one calls it so. It is mostly referred all over the world as Jammu and Kashmir. <b style="color:#FF9933">jinishans</b> (User talk:jinishans<b style="color:) Jinishans (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

added categories of states of india, kashmir and india
existing categories/sub categories of the article did not articulate Jammu and Kashmir (Indian) was related to categories of [Category:States and territories of India]], Category:India, Category:Kashmir. There appear to be no objection to the content itself, just the assignment of additional categories and not using existing category - is that correct? --Sdmarathe (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's take Ms.A as an example, you will add "Women", "Human" as a category? You can't. If other specific categories have included the very common categories, then they have to be removed.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for the analogy - it makes sense.--Sdmarathe (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Indicscripts
I got this reviewed by many uninvolved editors so I am going to completely disregard WP:INDICSCRIPTS consensus as this article is not only managed by a single project being a disputed territory and being related to international projects regardless of which nation is right / wrong or holds any direct influence in the actual Kashmir conflict. Being under the scope of multiple projects, it conforms to general wikipedia standards and wider norms such as those followed at other projects in addition to the fact that Urdu is not even an Indicscript, rather persio-arabic. I didn't get what you meant by the state having other scripts as well because I am not against adding the other scripts as well. Is there any argument other than indicscripts that is behind that revert? Including all scripts is a constructive move IMO, but its no big deal and silly to re-revert over it so let's discuss here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Russia lays claims to the Artic - should all Artic-related articles thus follow WP:RUSSIA guidelines? If you read the discussion again, the consensus was not about a particular project but about "India-related articles". Since currently Jammu and Kashmir lies in India, and Azad Kashmir in Pakistan, geographies of these territories follow the guidelines set by the two projects. I understand you would like to have Nastaliq script in anything with even most remote interest for WP:PAKISTAN - but please, for all practical reasons Kargil is on Indian-controlled territory, and "Jammu and Kashmir" designates the part controlled by India. For the entire area, see Kashmir and Jammu; you can have Nastaliq there. Besides, WP:PAKISTAN even doesn't have a section that would deal with geography of regions outside of current Pakistan. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  02:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, you got it "reviewed" by 3 (THREE) editors. Not that "many". Could have asked at WT:INDIA and not on your Talk page. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  02:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You can read the clarifications that I got from multiple editors in my first link above. Territory or control has nothing to do with which topic interests which wikiproject by default. The consensus was achieved at a wikiproject page, for the wikiproject and for indicscripts... so it can only be applied to articles managed normally by that project only. It has nothing to do with India, rather WP:India. I don't know why you think I would push Nastaliq script in anything with remote interest for Pakistan, I also favour regional languages though usually Urdu seems to be the way to go in Pakistan only articles. I am fine by adding all three languages. I did not need to ask for matters not related to just WT:India at that page plus that I was not the one who started the clarification discussion. Anyway, I think you do get the point that any editor is going to come to the same conclusion. Wikiprojects do deal with articles of claims, diaspora and wars etc and these articles mostly have more than one wikiproject dealing with them. My question here was if there's another argument except for Indic scripts? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 06:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Jammu and Kashmir is India controlled as stated above. Azad Kashmir is Pakistan occupied/controlled. Apply whatever policies you want to apply there. Since you have openly stated that you are going to 'disregard' a decision that was made by a group of people, I don't think it will be a great issue to disregard your opinion as well. As for your 'review', hats off for doing it on your talk page. The lease you could have done was notify WP:INB about it, but you chose not to, which is not surprising given that you started a proposal to ban that and stifle such discussion. I'm going to ping the India noticeboard about this discussion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Article is much about India, decision of indicscripts would apply here with the lead. నిజానికి (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems to be about India related topics, and the guideline seems to be there because of the number of languages involved. A priori it looks like both the legal and the logical condition apply here; there are multiple scripts one could use, and the topic is very obviously India related, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to ignore the guideline. I would add that the problem of multiple scripts exists even if this were Pakistani territory; people in the state regularly use at least three different scripts, according to the sources I have read. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Populations of major cities
An IP has recently updated the population figures for the major cities. Can somebody double check them please? Can we also have the source where these figures come from? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing lead section?
"Formerly a part of the erstwhile Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu, which governed the larger historic region of Kashmir, the region is the subject of a territorial conflict..."

I am not sure if it's only me but I find lede slightly confusing for an uninitiated leader. As early as in the second paragraph of the lead we get a plethora of terms containing the word "Kashmir", and as as result the reader must be getting lost as to what specifically this article is all about. (This seems to be not clear even to many editors, judging from the text!).

In my understanding, the intention is that "Jammu and Kashmir" should relate strictly to the current administrative entity in India, i.e., only to the territories under actual Indian control. A mirror article about Pakistani-controlled territories is Azad Jammu and Kashmir (and, partly, Gilgit-Baltistan) which, similarly, should deal only with the administrative entity within the Pakistani structures. So, in my view this article should only marginally touch upon the broader Kashmir conflict, and definitely it should steer clear from confusing the geographic reach of Jammu & Kashmir with the reach of the erstwhile princely state of Kashmir and Jammu.

In its current form, the lead section is way too overloaded with references to the conflict and to territories outside J&K, including naming disputes for a Pakistani administrative entity.

I suggest that the second para is rewritten.

Similarly, much of the content in the History section below is overladen with references to the conflict, even though the territorial dispute does not relate specifically to J&K but to the entire Kashmir region, and the analysis unnecessarily duplicates Kashmir conflict.

I suggest this article is left to describe the land controlled by India; AJK article to talk about Pakistani-administered land; and all discussion about the conflict (except brief mentions) is relegated to Kashmir conflict. Regards, <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  12:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did a minor copy edit of the confusing sentence you pointed out. This doesn't address all other problems you point out, however. As you know, the subject is a minefield, and making larger changes is likely to be very contentious. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

j&k
J&k isn't an indian state! Plz don't provide wrong information and change it! For further information read! kashmir conflict Zaif1010 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jammu & Kashmir
it is controversial area & writers of Wikipedia should mention it controversial not the state of india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.42.79.1 (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes! That's what I am trying to say Zaif1010 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

unexplained edits and removal of sourced content from pixmos
Please take it to the talk page before performing unexplained removal of sourced content. Also please stop making vandalism edits. this page is about Indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir - not the entire princely state of Kashmir which now is divided in parts controlled by India, Pakistan and China. thank you --Sdmarathe (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 one external links on Jammu and 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/20081208212815/http://mha.nic.in:80/uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=306 to http://mha.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?Id_Pk=306
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150810155616/http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html to https://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141110130230/http://www.amnesty.org.ru/library/Index/ENGASA010021997?open&of=ENG-BTN to http://www.amnesty.org.ru/library/Index/ENGASA010021997?open&of=ENG-BTN
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100126184828/http://media.www.kaleo.org:80/media/storage/paper872/news/2008/11/20/Commentary/Kashmir.The.Predicament-3554202.shtml to http://media.www.kaleo.org/media/storage/paper872/news/2008/11/20/Commentary/Kashmir.The.Predicament-3554202.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071021020626/http://indiatodaygroup.com:80/itoday/20000703/states.html to http://www.indiatodaygroup.com/itoday/20000703/states.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140502004023/http://www.indianexpress.com/oldstory.php?storyid=46240 to http://www.indianexpress.com/oldstory.php?storyid=46240
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120507200338/http://jkgad.nic.in/statutory/Rules-Costitution-of-J&K.pdf to http://jkgad.nic.in/statutory/Rules-Costitution-of-J&K.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060106150533/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com:80/2005/10/27/stories/2005102700451000.htm to http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/10/27/stories/2005102700451000.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081223193452/http://www.hinduonnet.com:80/fline/fl1719/17190890.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1719/17190890.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100324200655/http://www.greaterkashmir.com:80/full_story.asp?Date=5_10_2007&ItemID=26&cat=5 to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/full_story.asp?Date=5_10_2007&ItemID=26&cat=5
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091102130509/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com:80/life/2008/06/20/stories/2008062050010100.htm to http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2008/06/20/stories/2008062050010100.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402121629/http://news.oneindia.in/2011/01/16/jand-k-hopeful-of-wooing-10-lakh-tourists-thisyear-aid0126.html to http://news.oneindia.in/2011/01/16/jand-k-hopeful-of-wooing-10-lakh-tourists-thisyear-aid0126.html

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

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 09:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

BBC Contents
Hi,

I have have checked all those Policies and found that scholarly sources are better for information about academic topics like specialized article on Science while Kashmir is an ongoing regional conflict between two countries so along with books, News sources will be reliable for these Articles and BBC is a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Moreover In this particlar source BBC is representing historical facts instead of Opinion. So i should restore my Sourced edits. HIAS (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any other scholarly source for same claim? If that claim is true then we can easily get scholarly source for it. Controversial historic facts should be written by very reliable scholarly sources. If you are going by lone news article then we can get multiple news sources that any particular Indo-pak war was won by India, or 1965 war is won by Pakistan, but we don't write these things in article, because such things needs even better source. Thank you. -- Human 3015   TALK   05:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the BBC web site used here is not a news article. It is not signed or dated. It is essentially a "history for the dummies" summary written as a context for some other news article. BBC is not a reliable source for history as per WP:HISTRS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being the part of discussion, in that case the scholarly source by Author of a particular country is also based on opinion which is representing widely in this article, but the case is different here the Source is not judgemental and does not state that who won the War and who was at upper hand, it just represent a fact that a promise of referendum was given. BBC is reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. According to WP:BIASED reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. I will not WP:EDITWAR here but may be we should take WP:3. HIAS (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So now BBC becomes unreliable? We should not try to manipulate the Wikipedia policies. BBC is a reliable source, and if someone thinks it is not for history purposes, I disagree. Anyhow, I have added some more sources, if more sources are needed, please ping me. Faizan (talk) 10:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BBC is never regarded as WP:HISTRS. None of your scholarly sources support the claim either. So, I have tagged it as having failed verification. We will give you some more time to try and find sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Failed verification? None of your scholarly sources support the claim either. - You should clarify that it's the referendum about which you wrote in the template of failed verification. Faizan (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In my latest edit, I have reworded the statement. Faizan (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Note 1
Hello, Friends

The previous note was written about Azad kashmir and is still Present in Article Azad kashmir. Now i have created another note for Article Jammu and Kashmir and replaced it. Please reply here if have any problem with that. HIAS (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Jammu Kashmir
Hi,

Jammu Kashmir is not just a land dispute between Indian & Pakistan but a problem of national freedom of Kashmiries. Wikipedia writers must not write Jammu Kashmir/Azad Kashmir as part of India or Pakistan. As per the ground reality and the struggle of Kashmiri people, this is obvious that kashmiries wants freedoom from both Indian and Pakistan. As UN has already described Jammu Kashmir as "disputed territory", so this must not be mentioned as India or Pakistani part.

Rizwan Ashraf 07:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwan ashraf khaksar (talk • contribs)

Today's edits
made a series of edits today, all of which were apparently reverted. Having been the first to revert some of them, I am opening a discussion so that we can arrive at consensus: On the whole, I think the edits were well-meaning and raised valid issues. I would urge all the editors to be more welcoming to newbies, and discuss the issues rather than blindly reverting edits. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Happy Sage added the mention of two-nation theory and the fact that the Indian leaders didn't accept it. I reverted it because it was coming in the middle of Maharaja's accession decision, which was presumably not affected by the Indian/Pakistani leaders' views. However, we do mention the demographic composition of Kashmir, without leading to any conclusion. So some discussion of this issue is probably warranted. But reliable sources must be found. ✅
 * In this edit, he mentioned the Constitution of J&K. But it jumped ahead in the timeline. So it wasn't appropriate here. But I am also not sure why Nyla Ali Khan's statement is here. That is not appropriate either.
 * In this edit, Happy Sage added that Kashmir signed "standstill agreement of peace" with India and Pakistan. I think this is relevant, but it needs to be corrected (no agreement was signed with India, and it wasn't a "peace" agreement), and properly discussed.
 * In this edit, Happy Sage tried to cover the asymmetry involved in the UN resolution. It is ok, but it can be worded better. The relevant discussion can be borrowed from the Kashmir conflict article. ✅
 * In this edit, he deleted the reference to the 1951 elections as being "fixed". This wasn't ok. The source is not great, but it is generally agreed that the elections weren't free and fair. Better sources should be found.
 * I think the information about Kashmir's demographics pre-1947 (which Happy Sage removed) is pretty key to understanding the roots of the conflict, and doesn't need much further explanation. Without going into detail, I agree with your assessment of most of the other edits listed above. The history section is a bit of a mess in general – it's not in chronological order, dot points are overused, and much of the content is already covered at Kashmir conflict. I'd be in favour of trimming the section down quite a bit, and perhaps also dividing it into subsections to aid reader navigation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  03:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ✅
 * Yes, but the fact that India followed a secular nationalism and the religious demographics didn't matter to it is also a relevant point. The fact that Kashmir's predominant political movement was secular is also a relevant point. These are equally "key to understanding the roots of the conflict." Now that the editor raised the issues, the imbalance in the article is clear to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ✅


 * As for the bias, seen above... please suggest constructive points,which can help at consensus ...also Kautilya3  highlighted some of the points ,i had brought up.tell ur opinions about it please.I assume you are interested since you have been following the page closely.
 * As for the bias, seen above... please suggest constructive points,which can help at consensus ...also Kautilya3  highlighted some of the points ,i had brought up.tell ur opinions about it please.I assume you are interested since you have been following the page closely.

User:Human3015,User:Thomas.W ,EdJohnston ,User:LjL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy sage (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Everybody should note that, when there is a main article link in a section, the section is expected to summarise the main article where more details and discussion can be found. See WP:SUMMARY. If any new content has been added to the summary that is not present in the main article, the should be added. More detailed discussion of the issue along with citations must then be added to the main article. The "History" section has three main articles, Kashmir conflict being the most important one. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate to place religious demography at the present place
please note that while it is easy to point on me,i definitely believe you misunderstood my intentions. please scrutinize ur own reactions too,especially because edits were reverted without explainations.

.A Southern Muslim speaking a common local language will have a  sense of  cultural belonging to a local Hindu, Christian than an Arab Muslim. All these consistently highlight "assuming religion as the sole factor " for a nation formation which was done by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.The shortcoming of the theory is highlighted in Bangladesh Civil War. WHAT I PROPOSE is placement of " In 1941, Kashmir's population was 77.06% Muslim, 20.46% Hindu, 1.37% Sikh, 1.01% Buddhist, and 0.10% Unspecified Others."sentence in demographics section,to avoid unnecessary confusion and it is not in chronology too, #haphazard, #wrong things implied. /what do you think User:Kautilya3 ,User:Human3015,User:Thomas.W ,EdJohnston ,User:LjL Happy sage (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "demographic change",i declared the reason for removing it .It is not because i wanted to hide it ,but  because i felt that positioning of it ,gives a wrong justification about the significance of religion alone, as a binding factor for the formation of a country .India has had a very unique culture ,even before independence wherein,a person's identity is  defined not just by which religion one belongs to, but also on his linguistic affinity (eg. a bengali muslim and a bengali hindu have more common cultural affinity than a urdu muslim and bengali muslim FYI this lead to civilwar between muslim population itself,because of the wrong intial assumption of "religion as the sole binding factor for a nation"
 * Please note that,kashmiri identity is also not defined by religion alone Professor Robert G Wirsing, a renowned American Political Scientist in his recent book `Kashmir in the shadow of war: regional rivalries in a nuclear age` argues that `the multiple and conflicting religious identities of Indians, Pakistanis, and Kashmiris are deeply and unavoidably implicated in the Kashmir dispute.

Note that "Hari Singh had ascended the throne of Kashmir[12] in 1925 and was the reigning monarch at the conclusion of British rule in the subcontinent in 1947. One of the conditions of the partition of India imposed by Britain was that the rulers of princely states would have the right to opt for either Pakistan or India or remain independent. In 1941, Kashmir's population was 77.06% Muslim, 20.46% Hindu, 1.37% Sikh, 1.01% Buddhist, and 0.10% Unspecified Others.On 22 October 1947, locals and tribesmen backed by Pakistan invaded Kashmir." What i m proposing is the highlighted statement about religion should be placed in demographics section.I have explained the reasons above. Happy sage (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point that the religious composition matters to Pakistan, and perhaps at least to some Kashmiris. Therefore, it shouldn't be removed in my opinion. However, we should add the information about National Conference etc which matters to India. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Drafting the changes needed .

I concede that ″ religious composition matters to Pakistan, and perhaps at least to some Kashmiris ″ .My point was ,the use of one side perspective about religious composition should be avoided.That was the reason for my opposition Kautilya3 But,since many believe that Perspective of Religion is important, and not to be omitted ,i propose a comprimise.
 * Let us keep the perspective of religion as highlighted in 1941 demographic composition
 * Lets us also include the stand of the,future prime minister of the state Sheikh Abdullah and his organisation.He stated ″I and my organization never believed in the formula that Muslims and Hindus form separate nations.″
 * Let's include Indian government and pak govt′s stand too if necessary.

wp:agf i call upon any responsible person to prepare a draft with these changes ,which shall be presented here and shall be discussed  upon and after agreement,it shall be  be placed in the page Jammu & Kashmir. Thanks... Happy sage (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC) '''

Strong objections to the bias in the  present content of the page Jammu and Kashmir
Most of the contents,even the controversial ones have been placed into the page Jammu and Kashmir directly without using talk page.I ,for the same reason, call for a close scrutiny of the page and want to ask the editors who put them,without discussions here, to provide rationale for so many direct edits ,which is against the The five pillars of Wikipedia Some of the bias according to me are here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jammu_and_Kashmir  Talk:Jammu and Kashmir/section=7 heading Today's edits as pointed by Kautilya3

Happy sage (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why were these controversial points be added without consensus ?

The centre of attention is two citations from  The China Post's   commentary section. The link is.

citations used for comments : 1.first citation made is used to say "according to The China Post",which is clearly false,since it is not the position of The China Post,but a commentary(which i think is used for opinions..correct if wrong). *also note that it is trying to make a very controversial remark saying "India cites the 1951 elected Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which were, according to The China Post, widely perceived as being fixed,[54".This can clearly make reputation damage in relation to The China Post by claimg "according to china post".the article was the opinion(?) of ' Sikandar Shah- a former legal adviser to Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.'(as is claimed in the site..
 * India cites the 1951 elected Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, which were, according to The China Post, widely perceived as being fixed,[54] which voted in favour of confirming accession to India.
 * General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970) subsequently affirmed the right of internal self-determination, which the population of Kashmir has consistently been deprived of[57][unreliable source?].

2.Second citation is regarding ″...internal self-determination, which the population of Kashmir has consistently been deprived of″ Which is in the ″Pakistan holds that″ subheading. It is also not the position of ″govt of pakistan″ either but instead is an opinion of the writer. 3.editor(please someone tag him here,i dont know how to find him ) who added this has clearly misrepresented the opinion(?) of someone else as that of the china post  in the first case and of  Pakistan in the other. This became the original research of the editor on sikander shah's opinion by misquoting 4.Citation is not reliable for contentious issue. i request senior editors such as user:kautilya3 to help in next possible actions Happy sage (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ deleted. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nyla Khan statements
''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.[22][23][24][note 2] Nyla Ali Khan states that the people could accept or reject the accession to India.[24][25] Once the Instrument of Accession was signed, Indian soldiers entered Kashmir with orders to evict the raiders'' Why has the Nyla Khan(grand daughter of Mr. Abdullah)'s opinion be used here.She was only born in the year of signing shimla agreement 1972 and that statement intrudes in the discussion of the history of the conflict as indicated above ! If that opinion is used to justify(?) things, Virtually anyone's opinion will have to come.Wikipedia and the page "jammu and kashmir″ is not for collecting opinions..If that opinion's placement is any valid ,it should have been an opinion of a figure of  authority on J & K issue such as Abdullah ji himself. Simply put,the page is not for discussing opinions of different people(?)and irrelevant placement in the history section Happy sage (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ deleted. Note however that scholars' opinions can be written on Wikipedia with attribution. When there is scholarly consensus, they can be stated as fact. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work.This is better now,since it seems to address most of the deviations from WP:NPOV, WP:NOR .I would also call User:IgnorantArmies to kindly note it.
 * However I request all to note this sentence "By the mid-1950s the Chinese army had entered the northeast portion of Ladakh.″ It is not mentioned directly in the reference link.It seems as an implied one for the previous editor who had tagged this with the same link(since it has moved to a different address,the fresh link is added by me  )
 * So,i propose adding something like a comment next to the sentence
 * Here is the draft

''This is not directly mentioned in the source. But ,is implied by the following lines in the source ″After Chinese authority was established in Tibet and reasserted in Xinjiang, Chinese forces penetrated into the northeastern parts of Ladakh. This was done mainly because it allowed them to build a military road through the Aksai Chin plateau area (completed in 1956–57) to provide better communication between Xinjiang and western Tibet″'' Happy sage (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Randhawasingh edits & Density of J&K: 124/km2 (320/sq mi)
Your edit has three problems: So, I am reverting your edit again. You should not reinstate it until consensus is reached. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The population density was more than doubled. Please explain here how you obtained this number.
 * "Illegal occupation" etc are WP:LABELs, which are not allowed on Wikipedia.
 * This article should only discuss the Jammu and Kashmir state under Indian control, as demarcated by the Line of Control.
 * There is no discrepancy. These are as per the Official Government of India figures of 2011 census. It is mentioned in official census report that Density of India and J&K excludes the area of 78,114 sq. km. under the illegal occupation of Pakistan, 5,180 sq. km. Illegally handed over by Pakistan to China and 37,555 sq.km. under the illegal occupation of China in Ladakh district. Source:

http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/censusinfodashboard/stock/profiles/en/IND001_Jammu%20&%20Kashmir.pdf http://www.censusindia.gov.in/2011census/Religion_pca/RL-0100.xlsx

Now, area of Jammu Kashmir under Indian control(including entire Siachen Glacier) is 101,387 sq. km, although entire K&K state area claimed by India is 222,236 km2. In this Siacheen Glacier area is approx. 200 km2, where there is no civilian and only army controls thats, which in effect does not bring that area under the administration of J&K state government. Density= Total population/Total area (Formula used) J&K state population under Indian control(excluding Siachen glacier) approx. stands at 101,140 sq. km The revised population of J&K state released by Govt. of India on 25 August 2015 was 12,541,302 Density of J&K therefore was 12,541,302/101,140 = 124/km2 Similar exclusion of POK and Aksai Chin area was done for Indian density which was pegged at 385.8/km2 --Randhwasingh (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, you can change the numbers. Note that you should not make the edit until you are sure that the agreement is reached. (It is not ok to reinstate edit as soon as you have "explained".) As a matter of fact, you have ignored my other two points. Your reinstated edit continues to state the Indian government POV about excluding "illegally occupied areas" etc. So I am reverting again. Please change the numbers, not the wording. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , Since this article is mainly inclined heavily towards Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir state, you have to give density for that area only. Also, since 1998 census, no census has taken place in Pakistan. There is no way to get updated census figures for Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan, Saksgham valley and Aksai Chin. So its ok to mention density of J&K state for the Indian-administered area only. --Randhwasingh (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I ever asked you to provide the figures for the formerly princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. So I don't know what you are talking about. Anyway, I have now deleted the offending statements. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How is density of J&K as 56/km2 (150/sq mi) correct? Where is the source?

 * , How is density of J&K as 56/km2 (150/sq mi) correct? Where is the source? How it is calculated? Is this calculated taken into account the population of G-B, Azad Kashmir ,Shakshgam Valley and Aksai Chin into account? Please elaborate.--Randhwasingh (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jammu and 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20131108054536/http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2471&Itemid=2 to http://www.ajk.gov.pk/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2471&Itemid=2

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC) the population of the cities of jammu and kashmir is not as per the census figures, the population of jammu city is around 5 lacs and srinagar around 11 lacs, where as the population of jammu district is 15 lacs, whereas the population of the srinagar is 12 lacs

The standard map
The map that Ljgua124 replaced with is hardly the 'standard'. It represents a a biased POV. Why should the part of Kashmir that India claims and controls be shown in stripes? I see none of that at the Azad Kashmir and Xinjiang article, where they're shown as integral parts. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably because India objects maps that don't show the whole of the princely state as being part of itself. On the other hand, we prefer to show the de facto situation. So this is a compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced edit
Reverted this being not in the source given.—<font face="Eras Demi ITC"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring over map
Note this article falls under discretionary sanctions. Edit warring and no discussion is not acceptable. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan in 1941?
Kuatliya, Ref this, where you POVed by changing the text to "Pakistan-controlled territories" from simple NPOV text of "Pakistani territories" and also changed the generic text "it was expected" to "many people in Pakistan expected" by giving a vague edit summary: "Reverting some vandalism and some minor updates", please explain how can Pakistanis "expect (as early as) 1941 that Kashmir will form part of Pakistan" when there was no Pakistan in 1941? There was a reason that the original statement said "it was expected" instead of specifying "who". Partition of Indian was accepted by the British in 3rd June Plan (1947), not in 1941. BTW, you also pushed POV when you changed the text to "Pakistan-controlled" instead of "Pakistan-administered" against WP:NPOV. Then you again reverted to the same text despite the understanding that Pakistan came into being in 1947 and not 1941. How can Pakistanis expect something when there was no Pakistan?—<font face="Eras Demi ITC"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about a compromise, and rewriting the text to "Muslims expected that.." rather than "many people in Pakistan expected that..". As it is dealing with Muslim aspirations, but prior to the partition.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's workable, as, ofcourse Muslims could have expected this, but saying it were Pakistanis is totally a different thing.—<font face="Eras Demi ITC"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 18:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong in claiming that I changed "it was expected." My original text is here. I was merely reinstating it as I noticed that it had been vandalised. You changed it back and started chasing the red herring of 1941.

"Pakistan-controlled" and "Pakistan-administered" are both NPOV. Read the footnote 1, which was agreed between, me and a number of other editors before you ever came on the scene.

I regard the change of this section title to be an WP:ASPERSION. Since you haven't provided any evidence of "POV", I would appreciate it if you change it back. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * One, just because you added a POVed content does not mean it has to be correct. Like you have been pointed out earlier many times that you does not WP:OWN WP. WP is build by collaboration, and not by forcing your view across. What you call 'was vandalized' could very well have been the opposing view which you have been negating since the start. You have to listen to the other side, whom ever they might be. So, per WP:BRD when your content was changed, it should have been discussed, which you did not, and hence the problem. Likewise, when I say you changed it to "it was expected" it is because none of the sources that you have provided agrees with your view as what you have reproduced is merely WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Two, as regards "Pakistan-controlled", well Note-1 only clarifies how Pakistan, Indian and neutral sources name the area, not what WP considers to be NPOV. You very well know how naming convention have been used in ALL Kashmir related articles, but you chose not to follow it, and hence the POV.
 * Why POV: This was precisely a POV edit as you, in the SAME article, on the SAME day, used "Indian-administered" when refering to the Indian Kashmir, but in used "Pakistani-controlled when referring to Pakistani Kashmir. This shows nothing but a classic case of POV pushing.
 * Hence, please refrain from casting necessary WP:ASPERSION and warning other editors for the same without any valid reason.—<font face="Eras Demi ITC"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

NPOV map
@Filpro: Please stop replacing the default map with the POV version. We have a policy-based reason not to use the latter map. The map should only highlight the de facto Jammu and Kashmir territory, not Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan. Those two territories can be hatched in a light shade (but not coloured) to show the territorial claim, which is already done. The maps on Azad Kashmir and GB have the same position, only the de facto territories are highlighted while Jammu and Kashmir is hatched (not coloured). Given you 'thanked' me for correcting the map, your revert makes no sense to me. Please note issues like these are covered by WP:ARBIPA; there is no compromise over it. Thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The maps at Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan did not have the same position (as J&K) until the most recent edit at J&K. The red should not be hatched. Please prove that these two maps looked the same. J&K and AK. Anything else to say? Filpro (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, your edit has been reverted and replaced with this map. Please tell me that's also POV-pushing. Filpro (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean in the first sentence; the maps at AJK and GB articles have been that way for quite some time. The objection was over AJK and GB's incorporation in the J&K map, not on the red hatching on J&K itself. The map you replaced now is fine and is as per my position above. However, the map you restored in the first revert did not satisfy NPOV requirements. Hope that is clear now.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Use of native language in infobox
Should the native language used in the infobox stay or should it be removed as per WP:INDICSCRIPTS? Thanks. - Ind akash (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jammu and 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708012438/http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf to http://nclm.nic.in/shared/linkimages/NCLM50thReport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023540/http://kashmirreader.com/1948-another-unsc-resolution-on-kashmir-932 to http://kashmirreader.com/1948-another-unsc-resolution-on-kashmir-932
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140923061449/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jul/20/understanding-un-resolutions-on-kashmir-39.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jul/20/understanding-un-resolutions-on-kashmir-39.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://jkgad.nic.in/statutory/Rules-Costitution-of-J%26K.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130507120652/http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/140.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/140.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2017
Wobacuken (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Please request your change 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, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jammu and 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813232013/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/match_results.html?class=2%3Bid%3D559%3Btype%3Dground to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/match_results.html?class=2%3Bid%3D559%3Btype%3Dground

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To describe Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed region under United Nations Resolutions -The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948 and other UN resolutions
I am a Kashmiri from Indian Occupied Kashmir and I take strong objection referring to J&K as Indian State. Nowhere in UN resolutions is it allowed to call J&K as Indian State. I would like to request reply and amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashourr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

J&K is an occupied Nation by India and it should be mentioned that India is bound by UN resolution to hold the long due plebiscite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashourr (talk • contribs) 22:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can read the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 and state where it says that Kashmir is "disputed region". Alternatively, you can provide reliable sources that discuss the issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * UN resolutions mention that plebiscite needs to be carried out that makes it disputed. India has agreed in the UN resolutions that it is an issue and you can only have an issue when there is a dispute. I am sure you are intelligent enough to understand that.
 * I object to your reference to J&K as Indian state as nowhere in UN resolutions, it is referred as Indian State. On what basis you refer it as an Indian State? Moreover, we Kashmiris do not consider ourselves Indian so on what basis you refer our motherland as an Indian State. Either you remove referring J&K as an Indian state or refer to it as disputed. I would have to escalate this matter for arbitration, I am afraid if you cannot address it.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jammu and 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103144842/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2771649,prtpage-1.cms to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-2771649,prtpage-1.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2017
Would suggest linking an Urdu Name, as Urdu is an official language of "Jammu And Kashmir". Here is the Urdu Name جمو و کشمیر Wajidmehraj (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:INDICSCRIPT--regentspark (comment) 01:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestion
I think history of the state is only covered since middle 20th century. That is a very tiny fraction of its rich history.It needs a good covering since ancient/prehistoric times. -- Happy sage (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please follow the "Main article" links for the older history. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jammu and 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314205247/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,COUNTRYREP,PAK,,4517b1a14,0.html to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,COUNTRYREP,PAK,,4517b1a14,0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Jammu and Kashmir is union territory Vikashdwivedikat (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please wait for an reliable source. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Mountbatten.jpg

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Article 370 which gives Jammu & Kashmir autonomous status has been scrapped on 5th August 2019. KFI 10:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Article 370 and 35 A revoked on5 August 2019
2409:4052:2010:6DB7:0:0:2621:18AC (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  12:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

*IMPORTANT*
Remove jk flag Yashvats08 (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  12:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ADD the NEW DETAILS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
'''Please REMOVE the J&K Flag, Add as Indian 8th Territory. Removal of Article 35A and Article 370'''
 * ❌. Legislation is still pending in the Parliament. For now, sources say that only the special status of J&K has been revoked. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  13:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been passed in RajyaSabha .So better to proceed. -- Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , so why did you reinstate all these unsourced edits? Where is the source that says that J&K has become a Union Territory? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Change the flag
Change the flag of Jammu and Kashmir to Indian flag as of removable of Article 370. Now it's a Indian state and no other Flags are allowed.. Bjelite (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes better to add that since @7.10 officially bill got passed in RajyaSabha .Now Kashmir don’t have separate flag as per constitution of India.

Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Add the Emblem of India
After the recent change and removal of Artical 370... Now add the Emblem of India .. Bjelite (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes better to add that since @7.10 officially bill got passed in RajyaSabha .Now Kashmir don’t have separate flag as per constitution of India.

Upendra Pandit (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Language
Now, add the language Hindi and English too after the recent changes in Constitution of J&K. Bjelite (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Please change "It has special status under article 370" to "It no longer has special status due to the abrogation of article 370,which was abrogated by an ordinance that was passed by The President on 5th August 2019" 117.222.204.147 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed it to past tense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
India News - Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/article-370-to-be-scrapped-what-impact-will-it-have-on-jk/articleshow/70534157.cms 2402:8100:308E:B0E9:92F9:3A6E:7DAE:7A14 (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. It has not been scrapped according to other sources . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Manal Zehra (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC) I want to change that Jammu and Kashmir in India to Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan or Jammu and Kashmir in Pakistan and India. Actually the ongoing matter in Kashmir is that some of it is in Pakistan and some of it is in India. Azaad Kashmir is in Pakistan and Indian-Occupied Kashmir is in India.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2019
Jammu and Kashmir now a union territory with legislative assembly (previously included ladakh region now a separate union territory without legislative assembly as per the changes made with the assent of President Of Union of India on 5th of Aug 2019 by ebolishing Article 35a and 307) 27.7.218.246 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  D Big X ray ᗙ  19:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
122.172.125.30 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Please update the information listed in the page, as Jammu and Kashmir is now not a state , but two union territories of the Republic of India , the two being Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh .Please do so at the earliest. Thank You

Please Note -Further information is provided in several news reports around the world.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  D Big X ray ᗙ  13:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
Jammu and kashmir is no longer a state in India. It is declared as a union territory. Article 370 and 35A have been revoked. 2402:3A80:690:936C:0:56:EAD3:5001 (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  D Big X ray ᗙ  14:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to change Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory
Change statehood of Kashmir to union territory as bills in lok and rajya sabha has been passed. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2019
It is a Union Territory now. Plz update it ASAP 117.203.203.183 (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The structural changes will only come into affect on an "appointed day" to be published in the Official Gazette of India. Until than Jammu and Kashmir remains a state. A page has been created for the proposed union territory here - Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

A newspaper article is not a reliable source for such changes. Journalists are not legal and constitutional experts, and often jump the gun. Wait for the Reorganisation Act and an appointed day to be published in the official gazette. Only then will it have legal effect. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ - As per the reasons cited above. Maranello10 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

De jure and De facto
Should we add a de jure and de facto to this article? The area is currently being disputed between China, Pakistan, and India. If we are going to add it, then the area is India de jure and all three countries de facto. INeedSupport (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Heavy POV sentence in the Demographics section
It was originally added here. Somebody with an overactive imagination. Surprisingly, it has been retained ever since even though several nonsensical sources were added later on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The content appear to be well sourced and doesn't look like POV .. it is very relevant to the demographics section.. --Adamstraw99 (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Which source says this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Collage in Infobox
I must admit I liked the infobox collage proposed by in this edit. It resembles the one in Uttarakhand. Anyone has any objections against restoring it? — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  17:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the first problem is the size. Infoboxes have to be short because they are sidebars and the formatting engine doesn't allow any images in the body until the infobox ends. If the infobox is overly long, it pushes down all the other images. I was just struggling with that problem at another page before I gave up and removed all images from the infobox.
 * Secondly, I find all the images in this collage unappealing, including the current one. The Vaishno Devi image is appalling. All the others are long distance shots, and nothing is really visible at the size we are displaying them in. We are just fooling ourselves if a collage there serves any real purpose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2019
Its not a state of India but a state occupied by India. An occupied state where 600.000 army is deployed and today they are held as prisoner. It is requested to change these wording, so at least Wikipedia will contribute to those innocent peoples movement. Hope you will consider this in eye of humanity and facts. 92.35.95.67 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  21:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019
Xassz (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Please this country is still in India and it doesn't direct to a page of India as India isn't highlighted. Please add flag of India 🇮🇳 so it directs to the page of India. Thanks!
 * ❌ See WP:INFOBOXFLAG. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2019
Jammu and Kashmir- Union Territory Ladakh- Union Territory 42.107.84.67 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019
Xassz (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Please this country is still in India and it doesn't direct to a page of India as India isn't highlighted. Please add 🇮🇳 so it can direct to the page of India


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  14:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019
Xassz (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)can you add the flag next to country -- India by doing 🇮🇳. It is under the Indian control. Thanks. Please see on the news too if you don't know whose army is present.
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: . See the request immediately above. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  14:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019
Xassz (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Can you please add a flag next to country: India? The government has talked about the removal of Kashmir flag since they had their own flag next to the country's flag but now after the bill, everything will be under the one flag. Adding a flag would be beneficial to the readers.
 * ❌ Please see the answer to the second query in the preceding section. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect map
The locator map (File:IN-JK.svg) used for Jammu and Kashmir in this article is incorrect. It shows part of Aksai Chin (bottom right) as controlled by India and the Trans-Karakoram tract as part of Pakistan. I have already notified the uploader User:Filpro on Commons of this error so that he can upload a new version. The best locator map for JK was this File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg but it is now outdated and does not demarcate Telangana.

The error in Filpro's map for JK is replicated over other locator maps by him as well which are currently used in articles for all Indian states. We cannot keep using these maps and they should be replaced by the correct ones. It would be great if Filpro can upload correct versions shortly but the current incorrect maps shouldn't stay there for long; we can use mapframe and display OpenStreetMap in the meantime. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to notify User:Abhijitsathe if he can help, he has uploaded some excellent maps for the districts of JK (e.g. File:Jammu and Kashmir Shopian district.svg). Gotitbro (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Should also notify (upldr. of the de-facto file) to see if he can help with new locator maps for India. Gotitbro (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I need to update my locator maps for India. Can't tell when I'm in the mood to do it, but it will most probably take some time. Any volunteers, that may update the maps by incorporating Telangana based on File:India location map.svg? Go ahead! For the Jammu and Kashmir region in particular, I freely admit that I - sitting far away in Europe - don't possess much intimate knowledge about the minutia of the situation on the ground over there. As far as I understand, the situation is a mess. On the one hand de-facto borders may move over time, are obfuscated for strategic reasons or contested in a way that makes any border line hard to determine, on the other hand drawing de-jure borders is supposed to take at least two jurisdictions into account (India's view, Pakistan's view, maybe even the UN's or China's view). This may easily lead to fervid debates. In this case - from an impartial map drawer's point of view - I always recommend to draw maps that depict the situation from the different angles rather to find common ground. I tried to do this, plz check the category commons:Category:SVG_locator_maps_of_states_in_India_(red_location_map_scheme) to see what I mean. Thus the different Wikipedia language versions can chose whatever version they like best. --TUBS (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the omission of Telangana is the lesser evil. So I replaced the map by one of yours. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your locator maps scheme was the best one for Indian states (shown with surrounding countries, correct international borders, de facto/de jure etc.) the only thing they'd require is a simple boundary for the new state of Telangana. I'd be waiting for your new uploads so that we can again incorporate them on the wiki.
 * I think this would be the better one to use in the article File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg (without claims). De-facto ones were the ones being used in Indian states before the creation of Telangana. Gotitbro (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you will need to worry about people claiming it is illegal in India and such like. I think hatching is a good compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, Looks like cartographers are as confused as everyone else. The bottom-right part of Kashmir is indeed controlled by India (e.g. look at villageinfo.in/jammu-&-kashmir/leh/leh/manser.html in Ladakh which is beyond the intl. line in both Google Maps and OpenStreet) see this map on India's border disputes File:India disputed areas map.svg and this one by the CIA File:中国与印度边界地图.png (2017) both of which present the correct current status of the borders.
 * I was confused by the fact that Google Maps only shows claimed boundaries not de-facto ones and the incorrect boundary on OpenStreet. Further what confused me was this map File:China India western border 88.jpg which shows "claims/disputes" in red but I incorrectly assumed Chinese control (my mistake here); then there is this CIA map File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg (2004) [should be superseded by the 2017 CIA map] which, a bit unclearly, shows the bottom right as controlled by China. All this confused me to believe that the bottom right is indeed controlled by China (in fact confused TUBS as well File:Jammu and Kashmir in India (de-facto).svg).
 * After looking into this, suffice to say, the bottom-right part of Kashmir isn't controlled by China and the current map by Filpro is fine (the Karakoram tract is fine as well as nothing is demarcated beyond India). Apologize for creating this confusion. Also after seeing this, the File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg CIA map should be replaced by this CIA one File:Kashmir map big.jpg (2002) in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ,, I have been looking into the issues of the Demchok sector lately, and convinced myself that the OpenStreetMap version of the border (along the Indus river) is the correct one. Please see Demchok that links to the relevant OSM relations.
 * The "Manser" village that Gotitbro found on Google Maps seems to be a mythical one. It doesn't show on any other map and the Census spreadsheet doesn't list it either. (There is a Manser close to Leh, but that is not the one being referred to here.) It seems that there is no authentic information on where the LAC is in the Demchok sector, but it is safe to assume that the Indus river serves as the de facto boundary. All the roads on the eastern bank of Indus seem to connect to Chinese locations, e.g., in this segment or here with Indian and Chinese posts facing eacha other on the two sides of the Indus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The "two posts" I mentioned are 2 km away from the Fukche landing strip, confirmed in this news report. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just this year, the Chinese troops drove into Koyul in SUV trucks to complain about "Chinese refugees". The place is "close to the LAC" . the map location. They don't say whether the Chinese troops drove all the way from Demchok on the Indian road, or just crossed the Indus river in their SUV's. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Claude Arpi (with maps) says:
 * The "Kailash Range" is the one on the eastern bank of the Indus River. It is the continuation of the Ladakh Range. So, "the PLA eventually withdrew". Does that mean they gave it up or not? Arpi doesn't want to say. But the situation on the ground (video) seems very clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a surreal situation. At the end of the Demchok sector, the LAC leaves the Indus river and heads to the hills. You can see the track used by the Indian troops for patrolling up to the line. On the other side of the line, there is a "village" called Dumchele, along with a Chinese border post. It has been reported that this village is used for off-the-record trade (i.e., "smuggling"). "Several crores of rupees" worth of goods were apparently traded in the run-up to the Olympics (so that the Tibetans wouldn't run out of supplies). . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody covered the construction activity. The Sarpanch of Koyul-Demchok gives her reaction. Worth listening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In this Frontline article, you will find a picture of the Dumchele "shopping mall". An impressive place. I guess one has to say kudos to the Chinese, because India can't even be bothered to give them a post office. The incongruity of building the "world's highest motorable road" (no kidding!) to a place that does not even have a primary school is mind-boggling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Somebody covered the construction activity. The Sarpanch of Koyul-Demchok gives her reaction. Worth listening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In this Frontline article, you will find a picture of the Dumchele "shopping mall". An impressive place. I guess one has to say kudos to the Chinese, because India can't even be bothered to give them a post office. The incongruity of building the "world's highest motorable road" (no kidding!) to a place that does not even have a primary school is mind-boggling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Border dispute: the inside story
After studying things a bit, I find that the Indian feelings of self-righteous indignation are not quite valid. The Chinese claim line is the same as the boundary published by British India in its Kashmir Atlas of 1867. This map is curiously missing from the Indian government's collection. But the Qing Chinese map in the collection shows the same border. So does the high-resolution French military map of World War I times, displayed on the side here. (Use the map viewer to narrow down to the area.) The British moved the border up from Demchok to Fukche (the junction with the Koyul River). Why they did so is unclear. Alastair Lamb says it was a "balancing act". They claimed extra territory near the Spanggur Lake and gave up some territory in the Demchok sector. I can't find any discussion of this anywhere. If somebody has Parshotam Mehra's Negotiating with the Chinese, there might be some discussion there.

But these British map-making exercises don't seem to have made any difference on the ground. Both the Ladakhis and the Tibetans still regarded Demchok as the border, as pointed out by Claude Arpi's article mentioned above. The 1959 Indian government's border definition is essentially this, except that it took the liberty to move it to the watersheds (crests of the mountain ridges) surrounding the area. This is not unreasonable. But many scholars point out that it had to be negotiated with the Chinese. India couldn't just put up border posts in the territory that was clearly marked as Tibetan territory in all the maps of the time, except India's own self-declared maps.

There wasn't really much fighting in the area in the 1962 war. The border posts were manned by J&K Militia (Ladakh Scouts). India tactically withdrew them, expecting that the Chinese would attack with overwhelming force as they were doing elsewhere. The Chinese forces came up to the Indus river in their claimed area, but not beyond. Romesh Bhattacharji says that the LAC is the right bank of the Indus river and that the Chinese maps show it as the "IB" (international border). I can't verify this. All the maps I have seen show the Chinese claim line. (google.cn isn't accessible to me, if it still exists.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

An interpretation
Looking at the CIA map that we take to be authentic, here is an interpretation of the state of affairs that is consistent with everything I know. The war histories of 1962 say that the Indian troops withdrew to Koyul and Dungti, which are outside the Chinese claim line. So, the Chinese deem themselves to have advanced to their claim line (which is now the "Line of Actual Control" in their view, as confirmed by the CIA). But withdrew to the other side of the Indus as a mark of their large-heartedness (don't laugh). So, they let the Indians use this side of the Indus, but do not allow any permanent constructions there. They also deem fit to enter it at any time they please in order to block or threaten people. Indians have been playing along with this interpretation of the LAC but explain it to their citizens as a "difference in perceptions of the LAC".

Here are some tidbits from a BJP study group headed by Nitin Gadkari in 2010: So, it seems that officially the Chinese claim line is the LAC. Indians can't object to the incursions because they know this.
 * "The scripting of Chinese signs on our side of boundary at Mangyur and T-Point, is a part of this strategy".
 * "After 1981, China in order to put claim on these pasture lands, encouraged their grazers to enter these lands before Riboos from India reach these areas during winter."
 * "But, in 2008 the Chinese captured the animals of Indian Riboos from these areas without any reaction from our side. Now these areas have also become disputed territory."
 * "The Indian Army surprisingly expresses their displeasure that in the recent past, the people residing on LAC celebrated Dalai Lama's birth day which provoked the Chinese."
 * "As the Chinese army personnel forced the local people at gun point to stop the work [of building a road using NREGA funds], no objection was raised from the Indian government."
 * "... in 2004-05, [when] the Chinese constructed similar road on their side (within our Claim Line), there was no protest from our side."
 * "There are virtually no roads on our border and more distinctly in those areas which are under dispute."
 * "It is in common knowledge that China has constructed metalled roads up to LAC."
 * "A senior IAS officer who has served this area has been the real whistle blower to the real issue on incursion in the Ladakh region causing a great discomfort to the Union Government."

You wonder why this Chinese largesse? I think the reason is that the Chinese know their claim line in Demchok is bogus. Yeah, the British drew stupid maps, but nobody ever took any account of them. All the historical documents say clearly that "Demchok Lhari Karpo" is the border. So, I think the Chinese will be quite willing to withdraw from there, but only after India settles the big ticket items, viz., Aksai Chin and Tawang. Until then, we will only have smoke and mirrors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Bibliography

Recent lede edits
Sir, can't we just simply write Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian-administered state in the Kashmir region... instead of Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in the south- and southeast portion of Kashmir which is administered by India as a state. IMO it looks complicated and the "south- and southeast" part reminds me of the "north-central region" thing in the Uttar Pradesh article which you opposed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * True, the south- and southeast can be problematic. I am not wedded to that formulation.  I was merely trying to get around the problem arising in using "state" with "administered."  You see a Federated state, which is what the Republic of India claims Jammu and Kashmir is, is a territory under the sovereignty of the Federal or central government.  However, that claimed sovereignty is not just not recognized by Pakistan and China, two other claimants, but is also not recognized by the UN, the US, the UK, France, Canada, Japan, and a whole host of other countries. So, saying, "Indian administered state" is a redundant term.  For, by definition, if you have sovereignty you are also administering it.  Probably the cleanest definition would be: "Jammu and Kashmir is the portion of the disputed territory of Kashmir administered by India.  It is a state in the Indian union."  One will have to make sure that the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Aksai Chin pages say something equivalent.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the US never agreed to call it "disputed territory".
 * The wording on the Azad Kashmir page, "Azad Kashmir is part of the greater Kashmir region, which is the subject of a long-running conflict between Pakistan and India" could be duplicated here without any harm. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * However both the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan article writes "Indian-administered" state of Jammu and Kashmir in the lead though. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is bad terminology, as Fowler says. But it is not the end of the world.
 * The statehood of Kashmir (as defined in the Constitution of India) has never been contested by the UN, as far as I know. The authority of the J&K Constituent Assembly to say anything about the accession was contested. But that is a different matter. Unless somebody can produce evidence that the UN derecognized Kashmir's accession, it is a State. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What if we frame it as Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost territory administered by India as a state? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the geographic location of J&K is the most important thing about it. It can go in the second sentence, or even the second paragraph for that matter. Let us focus on the political status in the lead sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are OK with Jammu and Kashmir is an Indian-administered state?

The problem with a snatch of conversation from the State Department's Office of Historian is that it is a primary source, which can be easily misinterpreted. The US had said many things at different times in the 1950s. However what is clear is that they sponsored the plebiscite resolution and stated clearly that the formation of the state assembly, from whose ranks the government was appointed, was not consistent with their resolution. See here. Clearly, the US did not consider J&K to be a state of India if they did not consider the government of the state to be legal. As far as I know, India has not managed to appoint or elect a government in J&K that the US has considered legal. If there was even a snowball's chance in hell of any part of Kashmir being undisputedly a part of India all the CIA maps of Kashmir would have been different. You would not have had the clear "administered by India" in File:Kashmir region 2004.jpg. India, in the US view, does not have undisputed sovereignty over this region. I can easily pull up many secondary sources which state the same. The UN itself doesn't make any pronouncements about whether a territory is disputed, but Kashmir is clearly the oldest dispute before the UN. WP is beholden only to secondary sources. These, by the many, do use "disputed territory" when speaking about Kashmir. I can easily dig up many references for that too. It is very simple. J&K is the Indian administered region of Kashmir. That is its primary definition. That it is a state, ie that India has sovereignty over this region it administers, is disputed by many countries including the US, the UK. That is why I suggested, "It is a state in the Indian union as the second sentence." I am surprised that this bit of verbal subterfuge has managed to creep in without anyone challenging it earlier. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The 1948 discussion says two things: (i) the British delegation wanted to call it "territory in dispute" (ii) the US didn't agree because it would imply "denying the validity of Kashmir's accession". If the UN resolution had been based on the British terminology, India would have rejected it, and there would have been a discussion about the validity of Kashmir's accession. In the event, nothing of the sort happened. The US and the UK might have had their misgivings about the validity of the accession, but they have never been brought into the open. Without them coming to the open, and without India being given an opportunity to challenge them, we can't presume that it is a settled matter. The UN resolution being what it is, there is no "disputed territory" there. India's jurisdiction over the entire state is recognized (i) in entitling India to keep its troops for its defence (which Pakistan was not entitled to), and (ii) asking India to appoint a plebiscite administrator for the entire state (which Pakistan was not asked). So, blame the British if you will, for not having the guts to put forward what they believed in.
 * If asking for a plebiscite to be held is supposed to invalidate the accession (which seems to be your argument) then you have to consider the fact that India herself offered to hold a plebiscite under the UN auspices as early as 1 November 1947. Obviously, India didn't think that that invalidated the accession. Plebiscite was offered in the interest of peace and stability of the region and the well-being of Kashmiris. It is a pity that it had to hinge on the validity of accession, which could have been settled in short order had it ever been challenged.
 * We all accept that a dispute exists. It is plain to the naked eye. But labeling it a "disputed territory" means considerably more than saying a dispute exists. The US State Department officials, who understand all the diplomatic niceties, have clarified it, and that understanding is the same now as it was in 1948. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you think of "Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in Kashmir administered by India as its northernmost state" as the first sentence? It mentions location (northernmost state) as well as the phrase "administered by India" like your edit instead of "Indian-administered" - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kashmir region is one of the two regions in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu region, Kashmir region are two regions of Jammu and Kashmir, with distinctive culture. I hope editors will differentiate between these regions and refrain calling whole Jammu and Kashmir as Kashmir.  M L 911 17:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't do OR by interpreting primary sources ourselves. The secondary sources, however, have different interpretations.  I can easily find dozens of scholarly references published by international academic publishers, which use the expression, "disputed territory" or "disputed region" in describing Kashmir.See here  As for American policy, there too, the secondary sources have interpreted it differently. Robert Wirsing, for example, says, "'the Clinton White House seemed equally inclined, especially during its first term in office, to draw attention routinely to Indian human rights abuses in Kashmir, and, from time to time, to issue blunt reminders to New Delhi that Kashmir was still understood, from Washington's point of view, as a disputed territory. The most barefaced instance of this—the observation in October 1993 by the Clinton-appointed Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Lynn Raphel that 'we [the U.S. government] view Kashmir as a disputed territory and that means that we do not recognise that Instrument of Accession as meaning that Kashmir is forever more an integral part of India'—detonated a nearly unprecedented explosion of hate commentary in the Indian press.'" Indeed not using "dispute" is the well-known Indian government line, "'Notable were the several explicit references in these documents to the urgency of resolving the Kashmir issue. The two governments, in the first operative paragraph of the Lahore Declaration, expressed their agreement to 'intensify their efforts to resolve all issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.' Carefully worded to remain consistent with India's longstanding refusal to acknowledge Kashmir as a disputed territory, these references, by inscribing Kashmir indelibly—and prominently—on the official bilateral agenda, were, nevertheless, a clear concession to Pakistan.' (Wirsing, page 24)" just as using it is the Pakistani line, but the scholarly sources have clearly sided with Pakistani usage.   I think you might be conflating the Kashmir region and the Kashmir Valley.  The latter is indeed a part of J&K; however, on WP, Kashmir is a much larger region.   Still the same problem with "state." I'm now leaning towards, "Jammu and Kashmir is the Indian administered portion of the disputed region of Kashmir.  In India's  administrative divisions, it is considered to be a state." (with equivalent statements in the Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Aksai Chin pages).    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, can I frame the lead as Jammu and Kashmir is a large region in the southern portion of Kashmir which is administered by India as a state. for now. This "south- and southeast" is killing me. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion
Please comment and give opinion regarding upcoming big change at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics.-Nizil (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

J&K reorganisation date
Please let us keep in mind that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill 2019 has not yet come into force. Consequently, J&K still remains an undivided state of India, and will remain such until the so-called "appointed day", to be announced by the Government of India separately.

Consequently, until the day comes, please do NOT replace maps, change "state" to "Union Territory", etc. —  kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * But you yourself have changed "state" into "Union territory", and you haven't yet explained why you did so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, administrative unit is not synonymous with Union Territory but can mean any unit, including a state, UT, district, tehsil, etc. See the article. The hatnote's aim anyway is to help distinguish this article from articles about, say, Kashmir Valley. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  21:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * States of India are not "administrative units". Do you have any source that calls them so? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course they are - in India, states are first-level administrative units (divisions).
 * Officially according to the govt the date was Aug. 5th. Now there are only 28 states and 9 UTs. C1MM (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As per the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 (full text):
 * 4. On and from the appointed day, there shall be formed a new Union territory to beknown as the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir...
 * 2 (a) “appointed day” means  the  day  which  the  Central  Government  may,  by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint
 * As far as I know that notification of the "appointed day" hasn't been published yet. Newspapers etc have been pretty sloppy in their language but if there is something really "official" already, we can examine and discuss that here. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Further amendment required in paragraph regarding article 370 to reflect current relevant information
After the following paragraph "On 5 August 2019, the government of India moved to scrap the Article 370 from the Constitution of India and introduced a bill to divide the state into two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The move was preceded by significant military build-up in the state, a curfew, a statewide cut-off of internet and mobile connectivity, and arrests of local political leaders.[31]"

Following information which is directly related to this paragraph must be included.

[As per International Commission of Justice, "The Indian Government’s revocation of the autonomy and special status of Jammu and Kashmir violates the rights of representation and participation guaranteed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir under the Indian Constitution and in international law and is a blow to the rule of law and human rights in the state and in India. The move was preceded by a communication blackout, arbitrary detention of political leaders, banned movement and meetings of people, and increased military presence, purportedly to quell protests. The procedure adopted to revoke the special status and autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir appears to be incompatible with judgments and observations of high courts and the Indian Supreme Court, who have clarified that the President of India would need the agreement of the government of Jammu and Kashmir to change its status. The ICJ condemns the legislative steps taken with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, and calls on the Indian Government to implement in full the UN High Commissioner’s recommendations, including respecting the right to self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir, and to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of people in Jammu and Kashmir."]

Source: https://www.icj.org/india-ending-autonomy-of-jammu-and-kashmir-fans-flames-of-existing-human-rights-crisis/?fbclid=IwAR36-yfWQje_Yml_5swfq6wctsn8DM76DAqYZBjF3I2tlEiAuLbOv24ds4Q

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidlatif85 (talk • contribs)


 * Please follow and give your inputs in the consolidated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Thank you!--<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk!) 11:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2019
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 has passed both Rajya Sabha (Upper House) and Lok Sabha (lower House) of the parliament. The state of Jammu and Kashmir doesn't exist any more, it has been bifurcated into the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir (With Legislative Assembly) and the Union Territory of Ladakh (without Legislative assembly). Therefore the UTs are not proposed now but it has been created. The article was updated earlier multiple times to reflect the current change but it was re changed again to the state of J&K. It is unacceptable that Wikipedia doesn't accept the current changes that took. Please take appropriate steps to update this article now. Debjyoti Gorai 15:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. Please see the archive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

J&K Reorganised into UTs
With the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019, the former Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been divided and reorganised into two union territories (UTs). One is the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir comprising the Jammu and Kashmir areas of the former J&K state, and excludes the region of Ladakh. It’s a UT with an assembly and Lieutenant Governor (similar to Delhi and Puducherry UTs in India). The second part is a separate union territory of Ladakh without an Assembly. Pediasher (talk) 08:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * @Pediasher It is not an Act yet. The Lok Sabha is yet to pass the Bill and the Bill will come into force after it receives the President's assent and is notified in the Gazette. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk!) 08:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes needed on this and connected pages thereafter are : marking out on all maps, the districts of Kargil and Leh (of the Ladakh Division) as the Union Territory of Ladakh. Then marking out the area of the remaining 20 districts as UT of Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, the pictures on this page that are from Leh, Ladakh need to be moved out of this page and put into perhaps a new page for Ladakh UT.


 * I oppose this way. Jammu and Kashmir state and J&K union territory are different. This article should be an article about Indian administered Kashmir. We may move this article into India-administered Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir State. Then we should split a new article about J&K union territory from this article. --Sharouser (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A page for the proposed union territory - Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) was created yesterday and includes details about administration and districts. The infobox has been updated for new area and population and removed other figures for combined area until new figures are available. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see the centralized discussion at the India project noticeboard on how to organize the article(s) and distribute the material between them. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change the status of Jammu and Kashmir as Union territory. And split ladahh as individual. The law has signed by President of India. Subrata8352 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The page for the state of J&K should be changed in accordance with the recent events and reorganizing exercise. Also, there are a lot of points in the article which contradict the present scenario revolving around. It would be great if the admins pay some attention to all this as it will be a long process given the amount of changes which have to be made. Or the admin access be revoked and edits which have due citations be validated so that the changes can be made faster and preferably Indian admins should be involved in the issue. If there is a provision of selective access to the article then we can decide who to give access for edits by discussing on the talk page. There is a lot of renundant information. The reorganization bill is now a Law for everybody's info as the Presidential ascent as already been received revoking clause 2 and 3 of article 370 and this the special status so please update the necessary. AnadiDoD (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2019
Change "is a state" to "is a Union Territory" Change "Jammu and Kashmir consists of three regions" to "Jammu and Kashmir consists of two regions" and remove details about Ladakh. Remove Ladakh from Administrative divisions. Remove Leh, Kargil references from this article 117.215.25.123 (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Demographic map
please could you explain your claim that this map is POV?

I came here to try to understand Modi’s decision to split the state in two and to allow settlement by other Indians.

I read the third paragraph of the lead (“Jammu and Kashmir consists of three regions...”) and looked for a map showing me where these regions were, but we didn’t have one. Consensus deems this explanation to be so important that it has an entire paragraph in the lead, so why we show it in map form do you consider it POV?

Onceinawhile (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This map is very generic. It does not take into account individual cities. Even if you make a map such as this what is the basis — district wise religious majorities / division wise? For instance, Poonch is not a Muslim-majority city and similarly not all of Jammu is Hindu-majority.. This map is making broad generic assumptions. Wikipedia has an important role in the information we put out. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Further please cite the data on the basis of which this map has been made. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk)


 * In addition to what Tamravidhir has cogently stated, there are other issues. Population density appears nowhere in your map.  Jammu and Kashmir has three regions, to be sure, but Ladakh has only 2.18% of the regions population and of this 46% are Muslims and 39% Buddhists.  So what is the percentage of Buddhists in the region? It is 0.85%, i.e. there are 85 Buddhists in every 10,000 people in Indian-administered Kashmir.  By contrast, 1.87% of the population consist of Sikhs, i.e. 187 out of every 10,000 which is more than double the Buddhist population, but Sikhs don't appear anywhere in your map.  More notably, nearly 70% of the population of Indian-administered Kashmir is Muslim, that is 7,000 Muslims out of 10,000.  This remarkable fact is nowhere evident in your map.  From it one would think that a numerically negligible population, that of Buddhists, is comparable to a numerically overwhelming population the Muslims, especially in the valley.  I have uploaded many old British maps of India's religious demography.  You will see that its gradients are smaller, when the variation over an area is greater, thereby giving much more information in the map based on the 1901 Census of India above. :


 * On the other hand, if you are simply looking for district (or princely state) wise majorities, the map was:
 * Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The maps on page 10-12 of this pdf seem to do the job very well, but are copyrighted.
 * The problem is that the map at the top of this thread is the only licence free map we have which explains the topic. It may not be perfect but it is directionally correct and is therefore helpful to the average reader. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The century old maps I have added are not about Kashmir, but are meant to give you a sense of the complexity demographic maps typically incorporate, and did so a hundred years ago. In contrast, yours is too rudimentary, and therefore highly likely to mislead.  As for your upload; A blog which makes the distinction Indian religions vs Muslims and Christians, is not in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia. For it constitutes original research.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The map is highly misleading so should not be added. Khestwol (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bullying?
I may be new to this page but that is no excuse for your behavior.

You just reverted an entirely uncontroversial illustration of the divisions of the province, together with text explaining the demographics which was taken word for word from the lead, and therefore has clear consensus.

Aggressive reverts are not called for here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , please note that all edits to Wikipedia are subject to editor consensus. I see that reasonable objections have been raised to the demographic map you have created. I think you should let it rest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A consensus did not emerge from this discussion to go ahead with those edits. Rounding off percentage figures of religious denominations is a tad bit too much, given that in such instances even a 0.1% could also account for a significant portion of the total population. With regards to the maps, reasonable objections were raised, which were not looked into and satisfied. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Guys, the map which F&F reverted was a new map without any demographic data (see image at right). It was chosen specifically to address the concerns raised. I don't think F&F looked at it properly, just as neither of you did. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The issues raised were clear by F&F is their reply. This map is generic, makes sweeping assumptions, does not mention if the religion-wise division is per district/division/city, has no WP:RS to back the map. Thus, in bad taste. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking about different maps. The current debate is about file:Jammu-Kashmir-Ladakh.svg. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This map is ok as a geographical map of the three Divisions. It should go in the Administrative Divisions section, and should be marked simply as the map of the three Divisions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. The problem that needs fixing is that new readers, who are not experts like you, come along and read the lead paragraph describing the religious makeup of the various divisions, but there is no map in the article to help them understand what the lead is describing. This needs to be fixed; since you guys appear to “own” this article, I suggest you figure it out between you. You obviously don’t appreciate fresh views from new editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Making sure that the text complies with Wikipedia guidelines is not considered ownership. I had written out the lead in careful NPOV fashion once before (see here) It was changed by someone, see here, who introduced POV information. You then made a series of edits. You (unwittingly) copied the POV edits from the lead into the demography section. I did not know that the lead had been changed. I then reverted your edits, because they had introduced POV text into an article section. Upon doing so, I realized that the lead had the same problem. I then had to fix the lead again. I have limited time. I would like to precisely explain the nature of the problem clearly to another editor each time I interact with them. However, sometime time and other constraints do not allow such precision. That is what happened. I did realize that the map was a new one, but the text was contaminated. I had no choice but to revert. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. I appreciated you having taken the time to explain. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2019
Xassz (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)No, it doesn't make any sense. When the disputed territories that lie in Pakistan and China can offer map then why can't India? Please add map next to country India by doing 🇮🇳
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: WP:INFOBOXFLAG applies to all Wikipedia articles. I have now removed the flag from Azad Kashmir article. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  15:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GILGIT BALISTAN has a flag too can you please remove it? Also, I don't know why you don't keep flags. It is just a real information when there is a flag and authentic information. Why can't we have a flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xassz (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear That question you should be asking at the talk page of WP:INFOBOXFLAG.  Be also warned that this is a controversial topic area, subject to Wikipedia ARBCOM's discretionary sanctions, and that persistent questions, such as the ones you are asking above, despite the editor directing you to the relevant page, begin to look like  WP:DISRUPTION for you are not responding to his replies in a meaningful exchange of ideas  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

2.51.190.39
When will the UT status be updated? 31 October, fine, but what time? 0:00 IST or is there going to be some announcement? Because last time in 2014 there was no announcement for Telangana and there was intiially some confusion whether the bill was in function and then governor confirmed it took place automatically and immediately after the date was satisfied. 2.51.190.39 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If no Supreme Court order stays the reorganization, the article may be updated on 31 October after 0:00 IST. There is no rush since WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 August 2019
Change the flag of jammu and kashmir and replace it to flag of india, article 370 has been abolished already. Alescocznamo (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ See discussion above. Present your views and work towards a consensus. DeluxeVegan (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternatively please follow discussions at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. --<font face = "Segoe Print"> Tamra vidhir (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Jammu map
Kindly correct Jammu map and avoid showing it Indian Territory. It is a disputed region declared by UN, OIC and all news papers. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

About article 370 and 35A
Both article has removed by indian government. Rakesh k swami (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Plz update page remove j k flag and make it a union territory Yashvats08 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly avoid Hindu extremism by Nazi inspired RSS goons. These Hindu supremacist are trying to convert Muslim majority of Kashmir to Hindu using rape if women, kidnapping if young boys and army based cerfews. https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/08/13/kashmir-on-the-edge-of-the-abyss/ Ngnrpu (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Status of j&k
It is proposed Union Territory not state Arpitgupta2705 (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your can have a look at Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)--IM3847 (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Jammu and Kashmir is still officially a state until the appointed day which is 31 October 2019. This is explained in the history section of the article. A page has also been created for the proposed union territory. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir is Muslim majority based British Raj era state. It is disputed region and was destined to decide it's future by United Nations based plebiscite. It is flash point for third world war with three nuclear states China, Pakistan and India claiming it. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)