Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)/Archive 2

Regions
I want to add sourced statistics in the lead to show the ethno-cultural diversity of the 3 divisions of the state & their relative geographic sizes. I think this is essential for lead as much of the attention is given to Kashmir valley region only. Furthermore my changes are not that burdensome on the lead either.Balolay (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am happy to add the information about the various regions. Ethno-cultural diversity is also fine to cover, but it cannot be reduced to religions. Please find reliable scholarly sources and duplicate what they say. Census reports are primary sources. They are not lead material. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, ethnocultural diversity is the most appropriate way to portray a region. However in this particular case religion is very important in the context of the conflicts the region is facing. Furthermore, movements asking for separation from mainly Muslim Kashmir valley have gained momentum in Hindu majority Jammu & mainly Buddhist Ladakh.


 * However, the most important thing is that within an international context the entire state is often portrayed only through the prism of the events in the turbulent Kashmir valley & its Muslim majority with little emphasis on other regions within the state with their separate ethno-religious identities. Regards Balolay (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Wherever those conflicts are discussed, the religious issues would be mentioned to the extent necessary. In the Demographics section, religious proportions are discussed. But we don't do it in the lead for no apparent reason. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am always immensely puzzled with statements that try to reduce culture to religion. — kashmīrī  TALK  00:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Kashmir has United Nations based many resolutions from 1947 after wars between China, Pakistan and India. It is disputed region and unilateral action can't be taken to change its demography of population, religion, culture, language and property. Make Wikipedia a constructive unbiased platform and avoid to use it for extremism based hindutva or Nazi inspired RSS ideology. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A union territory separate from Ladakh
Ladakh is a union territory, notification has happened, so its time to update the maps and the text that says that Jammu and Kashmir is a Union Territory. Rajya Sabha today passed Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill with 125 votes dividing Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh into two separate union territories.

My stand here is that the separate map should be uploaded without ladakh.Lordofhunk (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The bill has only been passed in the Parliament. It has not yet come into force. See my comment below. — kashmīrī  TALK  18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The princely state of Kashmir is oldest United Nations relevent dispute of world since 72 years. United Nations, amnesty international and OIC have repeatedly commuted to hold a neutral plebiscite under United Nations based inspectors. Ladakh is its small district with a minute population. Dont try to make New York equivalent t to USA. Kashmiris can only decide it. Not a paid goon or agents of chaos Ngnrpu (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Use disputed territory of Kashmir instead of Indian Territory of Kashmir
United Nations, amnesty international, OIC, NATO and other historians have declared Kashmir state of British Punjab as nuclear flash point between China, Pakistan and India. Please read UN based resolutions to hold UN sponsored plebiscite for democratic right of Kashmiris. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We currently have a proposal at WT:INDIA to reword the leads of certain Kashmir-related pages to reflect the disputed status. You are welcome to participate in that discussion. That being said, the UN resolution is non-binding and puts forward only advisory recommendations, as the resolution was put forward under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Indian human rights abuses by state terrorism
Why Wikipedia is putting blind eye to Indian states cerfews and killing of youngers using pellets and abductions. Ngnrpu (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Do read the lead, and the history section of the article, where the curfew is mentioned. A more detailed overview can be found at Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. There have been no reports of deaths in reliable sources; if there are, please put them forward here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

INB discussion
Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Separate infobox for economy
I don't think the economy should have a separate infobox. Of all the articles that use Template:Infobox economy, Jammu and Kashmir, Chhattisgarh, Brahmanbaria District and Thessaloniki are the only state/city articles that use it. This seems to be the exception rather than the norm. All other articles that use it are similar in scope to Economy of Delhi (Economy of A, Economy of B etc). DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Only Muslim-majority state?
While that was technically true when Jammu and Kashmir was a state in India, it is no longer true when it's a pair of Union territories. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep is 96.6 percent Muslim. Suggest editing the Article where appropriate to reflect this. Sooku (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article on the state, not on the planned UT. Also, J&K is not currently a "pair of union territories", see discussion above. — kashmīrī  TALK  06:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2019
jammu and kashmir is a disputed state between pakistan and india,located in north eastern part of Pakistan Subcontinent,and part of larger region of Kashmir,which has been in dispute between india,pakistan and china since 1947. Anonymous pak (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please obtain consensus for your change. DeluxeVegan (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

change the flag
Please change the flag of J&K, since there is new rule.and constitution are fully applied on region because of recent changes & end of 370 Article. Put the Indian flag and Emblem too. Ck3141 (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please follow and give your inputs in the consolidated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Thank you! -- Tamra vidhir  (talk!) 18:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reports show the flag is still being flown over government buildings in Jammu and Kashmir, such as the secretariat building, and it will probably continue to do so until the appointed day when the two new union territories are officially formed. As for the emblem, most states and union territories in India use distinct emblems of their own and there is no evidence that the emblem has been dropped. It still appears on all Jammu and Kashmir government websites. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The state flag is indeed being taken down. This won't wait till October. With the special status gone, the flag too goes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please change the flag Neel Neel Mahtha (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The flag of J&K have been removed from Central Secreteriat in Srinagar on 25 Aug, 2019. Kindly update the same in the Wikipedia Article. Aadarshashutosh (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Demographics in lead
I feel the paragraph on demographics in the lead could be made more concise and trimmed, given that it is duplicated almost in entirety in the Demographics section. The main percentages and "only Muslim-majority state" should be more than enough for the lead. Since a reasonable number of editors did tweak it in the past few days, I am putting this message up on talk for the record. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The lady doth protest too much methinks
I have removed the carefully pitched India-POV that is masquerading as history. There was a long standing agreement on WP that the Kashmir page would discuss the period preceding the formation of Jammu and Kashmir as a state, and this page would cover the history thereafter. So, I was a little surprised to discover this strange history. I have removed it. It is mostly OR, and unencyclopedic. Besides we can't have a POV fork of content of the Kashmir page here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Another POV fork had been created in Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), which in addition has become a little shrine to the majesty of the Dogras. I have removed the POV duplication of pre-1954 history there as well.

It was made very clear from the beginning, just as in Britannica, which was the model for our pages. Kashmir is the main page with the main pre-1954 history. Jammu and Kashmir has only history after the formation of the "governments."

In its Jammu and Kashmir page, Britannica says clearly at the outset: "The history of Jammu and Kashmir state in its regional setting, both before and after Indian independence in 1947, is given in the article Kashmir." It then has a transitional first paragraph: "The decision by Hari Singh, maharaja of Kashmir, to sign the Instrument of Accession in October 1947—thus joining Kashmir to the Indian union—precipitated warfare between India and Pakistan that culminated in the establishment of the line of control (cease-fire line) in the region in July 1949. Jammu and Kashmir state thus became the territory that India administered on its side of the line. However, both India and Pakistan have continued to claim the entire Kashmir region, and tensions generally have remained high along the line. Fighting has occasionally broken out between the two sides, notably in 1965. China’s presence in portions of the area along the northern border of the state has also been contested by India. Meanwhile, the process of formalizing Jammu and Kashmir’s status as a state took several years and was completed only in 1957."

After this Britannica plunges straight into the state's history: "'The pro-India Jammu and Kashmir National Conference (JKNC) has governed the state for most of the time since 1947, with interludes mainly by the Indian National Congress (Congress Party)—notably from 1964 to 1975. The state has also been administered directly by ...'"

We can't have these different POV forks on Wikipedia. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  08:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2019
The State Flag of jammu and Kashmir lost its status w.e.f 5th August 2019, and hence cease to exist. Kind appeal to edit this article to remove the state flag from the infobox. Qwerty3594 (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. -- Tamra vidhir  (talk)

August 2019
Kashmir has been the cause of conflict between two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India. Pakistan is of the view that as a Muslim-majority state, it is part of Pakistan under Indian law and India considers it an integral part. The area has been declared globally controversial. - User:Islamic Ranger (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at WT:INB on this issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Area clarification
Area needs citation and clarification. Is the area shown here only covering Indian administered territory or all of the original J&K? We should indicate both areas in the article infobox. --Trickipaedia (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.
 * But please note that you should not make WP:TOPPOSTs. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2019
Recently, India put curfew in its occupied areas of Kashmir on 5 of August because of vowing against Indian armed forces and shouting for its freedom and rights. India put curfew and lockdown Kashmir since and violating against Human rights. Pakistan took this matter to UN security council for this extreme violation. UN have not decided in its recent meeting but decision is expected to be on the side of Pakistan because of Muslim majority. Because of the locdown ,resources and food supplies have been finished ,causing deaths. It is very serious issue and should be resolve soon Ars147 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Ars147
 * Unrest in 2019
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: poor phrasing and entirely un-sourced.  D Big X ray ᗙ  16:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this section should be added so that people know that this page has the latest information and if I am forgetting to write something please add on it and I did not put any reference and also I want the protection should be reduced. THANKYOU VERY MUCH ;;Ars147 (talk)Ars147 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ars147 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The major aspects concerning the changes are covered in the section Jammu and Kashmir in a neutral, summary-style manner. Further information regarding Pakistan's UN move is available at Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. The rest of your proposed change is POV that will not included unless reliably sourced, and said claim attributed to a reputed reference. Thanks, DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2019
Please change to Jammu and Kashmir (Indian state) as state will not exist in one month... readers will not want to read about former state but rsther new territory.. plz do the needful... Khoonsingh (talk) 15:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's already an article Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) which the readers might want to read. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes dearsir User:Fylindfotberserk but that is not what I mean... in one month this state is not going to exist instead Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Ladakh will.. when readers might want to read about Jammu and Kashmir like you said, they will want to read about the current ut, not a former state. Like for example when one says India they want to read India the country not British India... when one says China they want to read China the country not Taiwan.. etcetra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoonsingh (talk • contribs) 16:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not clear what you want changed. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Fylindfotberserk sir I mean the title. It is just Jammu and Kashmir. But in one month the state will not exist. when readers search Jammu and Kashmir, they will be looking for the ut, not former state. So at least you should change this title to Jammu and Kashmir (Indian state) so that there is no confusion.. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoonsingh (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the state of Jammu and Kashmir exists, there is no reason to change it as of now. After the creation of the UT, we can discuss this issue if not fixed at that time. Go through WP:CRYSTAL. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, everyone please note, whenever it is (let's assume it is 31 October 2019) that J&K will become the new name of a reduced Union Territory, comprising the pre-existing divisions of Kashmir Division and Jammu Division, its history section will go no farther back than 30 October 2019, referring its pre-30 October 2019 history entirely and invariantly to the current page, which will remain as a historical page, Jammu and Kashmir State 1954–2019), or whatever it is it will be called. I'm wise to the old tricks of POV editing.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder of additional sanctions on Kashmir related pages
A reminder that editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hours on these pages. There is a clear edit notice that explains this. Blocks will follow if violations of these sanctions continue. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * --regentspark (comment) 14:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * noted, regentspark. Can a talk page notice for the same also be placed. I remember seeing it. The talk page must have it.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * regentspark can you please put the talk page notice as requested. I had used twinkle, the "clear edit notice" that you are referring did not appear to me until I manually edited after this note.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Violent protesters in the picture
I've been in a disagreement with another editor, on whether we should describe the protesters in ] as "violent". I find the description to be non-neutral, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is worded now as "Police in Kashmir confronting violent protesters in 2018", which sounds like it was added by a biased editor. It presents the police in a positive light, "confronting", with it's connotations of strength and bravery. The protesters are "violent", which has nothing but negative connotations. Looking in to the matter further I see that the linked source for the image does not make any claims that the protesters in the image were violent. Are we basing the assumption that they were violent purely on the image title, chosen by the random user who uploaded it to the Commons? That is a bad idea. We don't need to specify whether or not the protesters pictured were violent. We don't need to specify whether or not the police were armed, or were using force against the protesters. To omit these facts (the former un-cited and unknown to us, the latter visible in the image) makes the caption more unbiased, and speaks of neutral motivations of the editors. As such I have reverted the editor who wants to include the un-cited and biased description of the protesters. This is the second time I have reverted them. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keithonearth per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO I have reverted you again, since you unilaterally went ahead and introduced your change that I had already disputed against WP:CONSENSUS. The discussion has not ended and starting a discussion does not give you any special authority to bypass CONSENSUS and implement your changes. If you repeat it, I will have to report your behavior on WP:ANEW.
 * Coming to the content dispute here, I see you have strong opinions against the present wording on the caption. Although you are entitled to having your opinion, I do not agree with either your opinion or your interpretation/explanation. You have pointed out 2 broad disagreements, "Confront" and "violent", lets take them one by one.
 * I am not sure what cultural/linguistic/political background you are coming from, but this article is written in Indian English and connotations associated with the word have to conform to Indian English. In case you have not yet seen the notice, the article on the top even has a template to advertise this to editors. FYI, I am a native Indian English speaker. Oxford dictionary defines Confront as "Come face to face with (someone) with hostile or argumentative intent." they even gave an example "300 policemen confronted an equal number of union supporters". Which is quite apt for our case. This definition of the word confront is exactly what the word confront connotates in Indian English. and the example further illustrates my point. You may have your own interpretations of the word but that does not mean we have to make adjustments to move the article away from Indian English.
 * Oxford dictionary defines Violent as "Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." with an example "a violent confrontation with riot police". which again is very apt for our present example which is exactly what the example states i.e. . I can confirm that the connotations of the word in the Indian English is exactly what Oxford defines i.e. "something that involves physical force" (Stone pelting as described in the image here). Now if you are offended by your own personal interpretations of the word violent then I can do nothing more than expressing regret. I would warn you not to enforce your personal interpretation of a word on a WP:CONTROVERSIAL article. I also strongly object to dropping of the word "violent" since then it would leave only "protestor" in caption. Protest by definition is to oppose and not necessarily violent. In the Indian subcontinent, a "protest" always connotates to a peaceful one. A protest involving physical force is "always" qualified with the adjective "violent protests" in the Indian mainstream sources. The article already describes the violent stone pelting along with reliable sources, so this is not an original research or something that I made up. The caption is not based on the title of the image but what the image shows and the caption follows WP:CAPTION.
 * I hope I have sufficiently explained my position and my objections to you. regards.  D Big X ray ᗙ  06:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * My background is with Canadian English. I do not have strong opinions on politics of the subcontinent. But I have spent enough time in India to understand some of the differences between Indian and other forums of English. I don't think questioning my knowledge of English is a helpful way to resolve this disagreement. Nor do I see any difference, in this case, between the Indian or Canadian forms of the language (or other forms).
 * You mis-categorise my two objections. One: that the wording is biased; two: that there is no Evidence that these individuals are violent. ::For my first point one possible solution would be to reword the caption as "Protesters in Kashmir confronting violent police in 2018". While is barely an improvement, it does fit the definitions you provided. Does this help you see while the definitions are technically accurate, it is still biased? For the second issue, you'll have to provide a citation that the people in the picture are violent. You do need to provide more info to justify your objection. --Keithonearth (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please point me the line where I questioned your knowledge of English, If you aren't able to find one, You should Strike off (like this example ) this baseless allegation. We are not here to take sides with the protesters or to sing paeans for the police. We are here to present facts. Here is the news article for the event where the pic is from . And here is another article covering the event.  AP news. I am sure you are able to see the tear gas and the stones in the pic. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the protesters in Kashmir are often violent and the police often need to "confront" them. The image doesn't actually show the violence or the confrontation. There are thousands of images on Google, but of course we can't get them. I see that is in a bit of denial.

Having said that, I admit that the image we have is not particularly good in showing the "confrontation". I also don't see it as being particularly essential in the article. So, the POV if it is exists, is in the inclusion of the image itself. It is straining to make a point. So, I say, get rid of it. This is a high-level article on Jammu and Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Removing the entire image is one way to deal with it. I personally feel the image is useful for the readers and we do not have many images of this type. But I will not oppose its removal from the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , I will point to the unneecessary definitions provided for common English words as questioning my knowledge of English. I do not deny that protesters have been violent at times in Kashmir. Does anyone deny that the police have been violent at times also? The use of non-leathal weapons against protesters has left many blind, at other times lethal force has been used. There has been no explanations as to why the phrasing is not biased, just skirting around the issue. Both parties have used violence, the protesters stone pelting, the police lathi charges non-leathal and lethal ammunition. I do think the picture is a good one, and would like to keep it. All we need to do is change the wording of the caption. I would suggest we change it to "Police and protesters confront each other in 2018", as a non-biased way to phrase it, but failing that, we can just remove the word violent. --Keithonearth (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keithonearth That definition of the two words were entirely necessary, since you were defining/interpreting these words on your own and adding your own negative connotations that are not a part of Indian English. differing from your misinterpretation of the word is not the same as questioning the knowledge of English. If you are misinterpreting both as being the same, then again this is another problem that you have, and something that I have no solution for. your deliberate denial/whitewashing is not acceptable to me. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Are we certain that the image is of a protest/confrontation, and is from December 2018? It could very well be a representational image. The event in December 2018 is supposedly a public march according to the image source. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Acc, to the report I linked, Police did not allow that march to happen, the protesters then attacked the forces, leading to clashes. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think the difficulty we are having in this communication is related to the fact that you are not differentiating definitions and connotations. Connotations are not to be found in the dictionary definitions you provided. Can you understand why I suggested you think about how the caption would sound if we switched it around to read "Protesters in Kashmir confronting violent police in 2018"? As far as you have told me, that in Indian English there are no negative connotations to the words as we have them, so it should follow that wording it the opposite way makes no difference. But in fact there is a difference. It is a difference that comes through in all forms of English, but even if it didn't it would be important to phrase things in a way that is comprehensible to international readers. It should be phrased in a more neutral way, that does not favour the police over the protesters. I know this may be a difficult view for non-Kashmiri Indians to take, as it is an emotional issue, but we should still word things in a non-biased way. --Keithonearth (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The current title is factual, chronological and as neutral as it can be without whitewashing or denying facts.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, you have expressed that opinion before, but simply repeating it does not more true. I've asked for a citation for the fatality. Still nothing. I think I have put enough work into explaining why I think it's not neutral, you don't explain why you believe why it, just repeat it. This is not helpful. If you do not provide an explination I think we should change it. --Keithonearth (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have provided the links for the event above. Please check. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read the links you provided, but I still feel you are failing to acknowledge or address the connotations of how it's worded. I've reworded it to read "Police and protesters confronting each other in Kashmir, 2018." This is entirely factual, and does not favour the police or the protesters. I hope it satisfies everyone. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IF you have read it then you should be able to understand and appreciate the sequence of the events. IMHO Your version is still a whitewashing and I dont agree with it.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for the edit that reverted my edit stated that the "Discussion ongoing on the talk". Your last comment does not seem like an example of ongoing discussion. I have read everything you have written, I believe I do understand and appreciate the sequence of events. I just don't agree with you. It is uncontroversial that both police/army and protesters have used force that can be characteristised as violence. We are describing the protesters as "violent", but not the police. This is biased. We can say we are whitewashing the police in your way of wording it. It is a bad way to word it. --Keithonearth (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Single article for both the state and the union territory
The more work I do on the pages for the state and the future union territory the more I am beginning to think a single article could be appropriate for goth entities as there seems to be a lot of duplication between the two pages. I present a possible solution on my sandbox for such an article User:Cordyceps-Zombie/sandbox Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Remove the flag of JnK, and put India flag SRK-JK001-007 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done - this is a page about the historic state which used this flag not the future union territory that is to come into existence on Thursday. Also it would not be possible to add the flag of India is the Wikipedia manual of style only allows flags in info boxes for subnational entities if they are different to the flag of the sovereign state. This is why other states and union territories show coats of arms on their info boxes and not flags. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Add “(former state)” to title in brackets
Wikipedia is being factually misleading and partisan by choosing to add the words “(union territory)” to the new page referencing the J&K union territory and yet not amending the title of this page to the factually accurate : Jammu & Kashmir (former state). This needs to be done immediately... at least to bring parity in the factual treatment of both pages.

Secondly, Wikipedia needs to remove the words “(union territory)” from the title of the other page belonging to the J&K UT to treat it equal to the pages of other geographic entities and union territories which don’t try to qualify the region with the words “(union territory)” in their title. Simply Jammu & Kashmir now stands for the union territory of Jammu & Kashmir, legally. That should be reflected in the title of the UT’s pages. So title it simply “Jammu and Kashmir”. Pediasher (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The term "Jammu and Kashmir (state)" would be a better title than "Jammu and Kashmir (former state)" as for the former princely state of the same name we use "Jammu and Kashmir (princely state)" rather than ""Jammu and Kashmir (former princely state)". The title ""Jammu and Kashmir" could redirect to ""Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)" to avoid having to change a lot of wikilinks on articles that lead to to the now union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Terms are used as mentioned in the majority of reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I Think you are missing the point I am making. At present the unqualified article title "Jammu and Kashmir" is used for an administrative entity that no longer exists while there is now an extant administrative entity also using the same name. To avoid confusion between the two the entities the article titles "Jammu and Kashmir (state)" and "Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)" should be used. The unqualified title "Jammu and Kashmir" could be used for to a disambiguation page for the three entities that have used that name over the years, i.e. the princely state, the state and the union territory. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Request move
Request move from "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Jammu and Kashmir (state)" as the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 are now in effect. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made the move per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, because the status did need to be clarified; but the eventual title(s), and the status of the redirect at Jammu and Kashmir, need to be determined via discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving of this article
Please move this article to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) now because J&K is NOT a state now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J&K370-2 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article on the state as it existed from 1952 to the present. The dissolution of the state and formation of the two union territories won't take place until 31 October. Per consensus, the union territory has a separate article at Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). I am not opposed to converting Jammu and Kashmir to a disambiguation page since a former administrative unit wouldn't stay the primary topic for long, but in a contentious area like this, a move should definitely be discussed (that is, no bold steps, please). DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, an update on this. A simple disambiguation page would be relevant now

Hindian1947 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
I feel a disambiguation page pointing to all three entities named Jammu and Kashmir would make sense. The question is whether the page title should be Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation) or similar or just Jammu and Kashmir, which currently redirects here. Thoughts? DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , , . DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Having the disambiguation page at "Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation)" and having the unqualified title "Jammu and Kashmir" redirecting to "Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)" would save a lot of time in having to change every wikilink for places that are in the new union territory. It could also allow us to quickly redirect "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Jammu and Kashmir (state)" if the Supreme Court of India decides the whole process was unconstitutional and decides to put back the clock. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion needs to happen at WT:INDIA, where there is already an active thread, and yet another old thread, which discussed how we should proceed.
 * There all several thousand links to "Jammu and Kashmir" all over Wikipedia. It will take months or years to go through all of them and decide which unit they refer to.
 * There are several outstanding petitions in the Supreme Court of India challenging the whole business. The Government of India has not even filed a response to them, and the last I heard, asked for "more time". In my view, nothing more needs to be done with the organisation of the pages until the Supreme Court makes a decision. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are right that the outcome of the legal case and, par consequentiam, the legal status of the territory is a big unknown at the moment. For this reason I don't think the incoming links all over WP should be updated as yet. However, whatever the outcome of the legal case, we will always retain three articles on the three administrative entities (princely state, state, and UT) and so a disambiguation page at Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation) would be helpful as it could be used in hatnotes which I think we should used extensively as a temporary solution. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Page move, dab, etc
It seems that different people are unilaterally either trying to move the page, remove the dab, without even the courtesy of a coherent edit summary. I have AGF-reverted one such attempt. Will the regulars here,, and others take a look at what is going on and fix it? Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting page move
It's been over two weeks now. Official Indian maps, hubdreds of articles have been published reflecting the current state. I believe it is time to redirect this page to the UT article.

Hindian1947 (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"Occupied territories of Pakistan" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Occupied territories of Pakistan. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Fix redirect link
It is to bring into the notice of editors capable of editing protected pages. The link which reaches to Doda district in the article is actually a redirect. It is pointed to a redirect Doda District. It needs to be fixed appropriately to Doda district to remove the unnecessary redirect. I can't do this since the page is edit protected. Thank you. — The Ultimate  Let's Talk 10:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Appears to have been fixed now. – Uanfala (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2020
Jammu and Kashmir belongs to Pakistan, India has taken control over it illegally and are not willing to leave. 88.105.73.49 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

history kashmir
History of the valley has been confined to 1900. Well it has more than 4000 years of culture which should be added to the history of kashmir on wikipedia Faizan Ahmad Bhat (talk) 10:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see Kashmir, History of Kashmir etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jammu-Kashmir-Ladakh.svg

Lede edit request
Instead of

"Jammu and Kashmir[a] was a region formerly administered by India as a state from 1954 to 2019"

it should be rephrased to this:

"Jammu and Kashmir[a] was a region formerly administered as a state from 1954 to 2019 by India".

The first one makes it a little unclear on what the 'was' is supposed to mean.

Hope this helps, thanks. Amazingcaptain (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Confusing introduction
On Google if you search for "Jammu and Kashmir" this text shows on google.

Jammu and Kashmir was a region formerly administered by India as a state from 1954 to 2019, constituting the southern and southeastern portion of the larger Kashmir region, which has been the subject of a dispute between India, Pakistan and China since the mid-20th century. Wikipedia

This text confuses them as there are two Jammu and Kashmir (state) the larger one, i.e. the former princely state and the smaller one formerly administered by India. Most people are searching for the Kashmir Conflict when they see this text and it confuses them.

It needs to be restructured to make more sense, e.g:

Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) has been the subject of a dispute between India, Pakistan and China since the mid-20th century. The southeastern portion of the larger Kashmir region was later administered by India and also called Jammu and Kashmir from 1954 to 2019.

Then they could click on Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) to go to that page. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2020
2409:4054:2002:6A8A:90C6:D9DF:4D17:EFB4 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Change kishtwar area to 7,737 Km²
 * Yes check.svg Done There were multiple errors in the Jammu District numbers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Paharis
Is anyone familiar with the Paharis of Kashmir? Feedback would be welcome at Talk:Pahari Speaking People. – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

"جموں و کشمی" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect جموں و کشمی. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"जम्मू और कश्मीर" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect जम्मू और कश्मीर. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Jammu aur Kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jammu aur Kashmir. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Jammu and Kashmīr" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jammu and Kashmīr. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 20 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 10:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Integral part of India
Jammu and Kashmir are integral part of India. And it is still administered by the Indian government. It was never called as azad kashmir. Aghorahu (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The situation is complicated.
 * There is an article, Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), about the country called "Jammu and Kashmir", which existed until 1947 (or 1952 depending on your point of view).
 * The article on Jammu and Kashmir (state) is about the parts of the former-country of Jammu and Kashmir that were administered as a state by India from 1954 to 2019.
 * The articles on Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are about parts of the former-country of Jammu and Kashmir that are administered by the neighbouring country of Pakistan.
 * The article on Aksai Chin is about one of the parts of the former-country of Jammu and Kashmir currently under occupation by Chinese Communist Forces.
 * The lead tries to explain this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * More importantly, we don't have any WP:THIRDPARTY reliable sources stating that "Jammu and Kashmir are integral part of India". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * These are the official UN maps for Jammu and Kashmir: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf UNMOGIP map for Kashmir is here https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf
 * India, Pakistan and China are officially outside Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore all the UN reports https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IN/KashmirUpdateReport_8July2019.pdf and all the official maps even from media outlets like the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17156238 and governments around the world call this area by its official name Pakistan Administered Kashmir and Indian Administered Kashmir Johnleeds1 (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We need to use the official UN maps for Kashmir
We need to use the official UN maps for Kashmir which are here: https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/SouthAsia.pdf https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world.pdf UNMOGIP map for Kashmir is here https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/UNMOGIP.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your query has been answered here. Please sign your posts by using four tilde(s): ~  at the end before "publishing changes" There is no need to make the same post on multiple pages; it is enough to do so on the flagship page, Talk:Kashmir. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021
Jammu and Kashmir were two states of India until Government of India repealed the special status accorded to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian constitution in 2019, the Parliament of India passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, which contained provisions that dissolved the state and reorganized it into two union territories. 152.180.11.47 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what change you wish to make. Please make your request specific and provide supporting sources for verification. CMD (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

More than one Kashmir page? Proposal to merge Jammu Kashmir (state) article and Jammu Kashmir Union territory articles as one
First of all sorry I didn't noticed that this article is about "state' and there's another article on Jammu Kashmir union territory, I unknowingly removed the flag as didn't know that there's more than 2 articles on Kashmir! I did a quick search and found that Kashmir has indeed 3 article about it (if we do not count Azad kashmir) and this article on JK state and another article on JK union territory has not much information in it, I think We should merge these two articles ( article on JK state and article on JK Union territory) into a single article with the title Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory, TBH it's quite confusing now. What's your opinion on this? --E1Char (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This confusion can be see in the above extended confirmed edit request dated to 26 April 2021, He saw this article with infobox title "Jammu Kashmir State" with state flag, so he's requesting to change it as state flag permanently got removed in 2019; but he didn't know that there's a separate article on Jammu and Kashmir UT (for WHAT?), nobody would expect that as that kind of change could be added here as a section in this article.--E1Char (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot understand why you would be confused. It is all perfectly simple. There is even a hatnote on the article page that says: This article is about the former state. For the current union territory, see Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). For the former princely state, see Jammu and Kashmir (princely state).


 * What you are proposing would be extremely confusing. There is a cult of "now-ism", so people would start chopping out stuff that was relevant to the former state (which had different boundaries to the present union territory). -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2021
Kashmir before partion of India was ruled by a Rajput king Hari Singh, who signed the accession to India. 2409:4050:2DC7:8BC7:6F:7736:7B20:ABCC (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)