Talk:Kashmir/Archive 4

Untitled
This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 2006 and June 2007. Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. SBC-YPR (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Error in the Kashmir Map Description
Hi Please Correct the description under the kashmir Map, you had MEntioned Pakistan Administered Kashmair, the same rule shoul apply to india, insted you pointed to Indian Occupied Kashmir.

Please Correct this, Wikipedia Should give unbaised information,

Thanks, Lakshmi Narayana

203.145.132.252 15:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

'''

This is a valid suggestion. Given the very nature of Wiki such topics requires tight controls and fair balance. The word occupied should be removed,

MarkStreet

PUNJABI AND PATHAN SETTLERS
I am a Kashmiri and we dont have punjabi and pathan settlers, rather a lot of pathans are merchants in Azad Kashmir but they dont have any legal status

You are not a kashmiri, you are either a pahari or gujjar. Paharis and Gujjars differ from the kashmiris since they do not speak kashmiri language and do not follow kashmiri culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What? How the heck would you know from his one line comment? Ridiculous post makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree.. how would you know from his one liner comment, must be another dilutional indian concocting up a history again.. lol! BTW.. whats with the blatant alteration of history and facts in this article???? Was this entire article written by dilutional indians thinking that the world doesnt know whats going on in Kashmir and that the indian army has been carrying out gross violations of human rights, torture, rape in the territory it occupies in Kashmir. Are all indians like this, or are we just seeing the same dilutional one on wikipedia over and over again!!! lol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.112.89 (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This article seems quite untidy, sometimes reading like a tourist guide.
Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge of Kashmir to properly clean up this article, would anyone more knowledgeable be able to have a go? NJW494 14:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

broken link
http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html I can't get this link to work. It is currently the second footnote. Mattisse(talk) 16:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html then. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was clearly written by an Indian. It shows in some sections of the article. You mentioned about Ethnic cleansing of Hindus but you forget to point out the Ethnic cleansing of Muslims during the late 1800s and up till 1947. My family actually migrated from Kashmire because of this. Be more balanced when you write an article on a website like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.83.29 (talk)


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Idleguy 06:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan

 * Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon.  vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir links
The Kashmir page offers an excellent opportunity to highlight the situation in that troubled region to the world. The main page is in need of some balanced revision. Perhaps a committee of interested parties can come together to improve the page.

MarkStreet

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.

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)

A general plea to improve the quality of this article
I just corrected many grammatical errors and misspellings (e.g., emperor Aurangzeb was misspelled "Aurengzeb", which albeit may reflect pronunciation in the Subcontinent but is not how to look up this personage in reference works). Several portions were not very intelligently worded, in that they were clumsy or redundant. E.g., "grant sovereignty and self governance"; "sovereignty" by definition includes self governance.

In a very few instances, there were mild violations of NPOV, which simultaneously were inconsistent factually with the rest of the article. I am ignorant of the Kashmir question. Therefore, I do not mean to assert confirmation of any claims made by previous contributors. All I have done is remove the article's crudest internal contradictions (recognizing that most likely these contradictory statements were not made by the same contributor).

I find the quality of this article to be poor overall. There are few references offered. Many strong claims are not justified by any citations whatsoever. Others are justified by sources which on their face are to be considered unauthoritative and/or biased on the Kashmir issue, e.g., China Daily. I deleted a paragraph claiming that the Lost Tribes of Israel migrated to Kashmir and that Moses is buried there. Not only is this obvious nonsense, but the only citation was some blog at blogspot.com.

In several places, background information is withheld. For example, what great importance does the Viceroy of India have such that a statement by his press attache concerning the validity of India's territorial claim should be accepted as authoritative? Please explain to the non-Commonwealth readership what the officially assigned role of the United Kingdom is in the post 1948 political order in India. Another shabby thing about the "Viceroy's press attache" citation is that no *year* is given (1948? 1998?) and the Viceroy himself not named. Hurmata 01:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir not part of Pak - Pak Foreign Office
1. “For the past 60 years, we have never claimed Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan. What we have said is that Kashmiris should be able to decide their future and we hope that they would opt for Pakistan,” Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam told a weekly news briefing here.

2. When Ms Aslam was reminded that the slogan of the Pakistani nation for past 60 years had been: ‘Kashmir banay ga Pakistan’ her response was: “That is a slogan of Kashmiris not Pakistan.”

3. Asserting that Pakistan had never claimed that Azad Kashmir was part of Pakistan, the Spokesperson said: “Azad Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. If we were claiming it as integral part of Pakistan then we would have had a governor and a chief minister there.” The spokesperson urged the reporters to study Pakistan’s historical position on Kashmir.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/12/12/top3.htm

It's time to clean up all articles with the assertion that Pak claims Kashmir. Evidently it does not and never has all these decades. So much for every expert's well-researched understanding on matters Kashmir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. --- Skapur 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information that a foreign office spokesperson. Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir “The Kashmir puzzle”
"The Kashmir puzzle"

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf. K.V. Seetharamaiah, Hassan

Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change. K.S. Thampi, Chennai

By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India. It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle. A. Paramesham, New Delhi

A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion) S.P. Sundaram, Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations. M.N. Srinivasan, Vellore

Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message. Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi, Dhenkanal, Orissa

Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now. Shashikant Singh, Roorkee

'''Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm '''

Atulsnischal 12:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Factual Clarification on Kashmiri wars
I have modified the following section in "Political Divisions" because of factual errors and weak writing: "The two countries have fought three wars over the territory: the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and the third Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (reference List of wars). More recently, in 1999, there was a limited border conflict (also referred to by some as the fourth Kashmir war) in the Kargil area of India-controlled Kashmir. In all these four wars, Pakistan was soundly beaten by India. In 1971, they lost half of their country and was forced to take 93,000 POW." "The two countries have fought several declared wars over the territory. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 established the rough boundaries of today, with Pakistan holding roughly one-third of Kashmir, and India two-thirds.  The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 began with a Pakistani attempt to sieze the rest of Kashmir, erroneously banking on support from then-ally the United States.  Both resulted in stalemates and UN-negotiated ceasefires.  More recent conflicts have resulted in success for India; it gained control of the Siachen glacier after a low-intensity conflict that began in 1984, and Indian forces repulsed a Pakistani/Kashimir guerrilla attempt to sieze positions during the Kargil War of 1999.  This defeat led to the coup d'etat of Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.  The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, fought primarily over the independence of Bangladesh on the other side of India, peripherally involved Kashmir. Facing defeat in Bangladesh, Pakistan invaded Kashmir, but India repulsed the attempt and gained Pakistani territory (but returned it at the end of the war)."
 * Old Version:
 * New Version:

Reading over the entries on specific conflicts, Pakistan was NOT 'soundly beaten' in 1947 and 1965. Also, as the 1971 war only involved Kashmir indirectly, I have limited its content by removing the non-Kashmiri outcomes, which seems unnecessary to an article about Kashmir.

I have also made the following change: "Though these regions are in practice administered by their respective claimants, India has never formally recognised the accession of the areas claimed by Pakistan and China. India claims those areas, including the area "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963, are a part of its territory, while Pakistan claims the region, excluding Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract. Pakistan views the entire Kashmir region as a disputed territory while India refuses to accept Kashmir as a disputed territory and claims Kashmir is an integral part of India according to the Indian constitution, since at the time of India's division Kashmir was given to India based upon the King's will."
 * Old Version:

to "Though these regions are in practice administered by their respective claimants, India has never formally recognised the accession of the areas claimed by Pakistan and China. India claims those areas, including the area "ceded" to China by Pakistan in the Trans-Karakoram Tract in 1963, are a part of its territory, while Pakistan claims the region, excluding Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract. Pakistan argues that Kashmir is culturally and religiously aligned with Pakistan (Kashmir is a Muslim region), while India bases its claim to Kashmir off Maharaja Hari Singh's decision to give Kashmir to India during the India-Pakistan split. Kashmir is considered one of the world's most dangerous territorial disputes due to the nuclear capabilities of India and Pakistan."
 * New Version:

I have modified the second paragraph because it directly contradicts the first and is not very clear who the "King" is.

Beheim 19:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
From the section on Tourism:

"Nature has lavishly endowed Kashmir with certain distinctive favours which hardly find a parallel in any alpine land of the world."

That sounds far more like a tourism brochure than an encylopedic entry. The British spelling of 'favour' tends to make me a bit suspicious that it might actually *be* a plant from some Kashmiri tourism board.

We need to come to a resolution! (Lost tribes of Israel, Kashmiri Pandits)
First of, the section describing the Lost tribes of Israel is not nonsense.. The only reason I have included the reference as my blog is cause i cannot import the tables to Wikipedia. I have imported all the Information directly from www.tombofjesus.com. And BBC would not make a documentary about it if it was complete nonsese And secondly, Noble Eagle keeps deleting my edits to the Demographics section. I'm a Kashmiri who has lived in Kashmir and I'm quite aware that MOST Kashmiri's consider the exodus to be a planned event that was staged by Jagmohan. I've also said that the Hindu populace holds that the exodus was due to intimidation, but I don't think that what a small minority believes should be what Wikipedia should state. The fact is that this article is about Kashmir and so what the Kashmiri majority believes and knows should be given preference over the minority. And if you keep deleting my posts out of arrogance, I'll keep deleting yours. Two can play this game!

So lets reach a consensus. Wikipedia is not a Propoganda machine!

---

What consensus? Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus is a documented event. Wikipedia is not a place for Urban legends. Your edits would be revised unlessed sourced.  Amey Aryan DaBrood&#169; 18:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If by documented you mean the "propaganda" that seems to be everywhere on the Internet, you need to find a better source. The majority of Kashmiri people believe that the exodus was organized by Jagmohan. Is that not documentation enough? The leader of the pro-Indian National Conference party which was in power for more that a decade stated this publicly and in a news interview. I think as an elected representative, his views reflect the views of the Kashmiri people. The exodus was an unfortunate event, however Wikipedia should not be used as another propoganda machine. What about the thousands and thousands who have died since the exodus. There is hardly much mention of them. However, the "misery" of 7-10 percent of Kashmiri population has been highlighted and occupies nearly half the demographics section. This is outrageous. I will looking for sources to everything that is edited now. I'm deleting the entire section. If there is anything there that is properly documented, it will stay. Otherwise its out.

And even you want to include your story, please make it shorter than a paragraph and give as much space to the opposing views since clearly Kashmiri's do not all agree to what really happened.


 * Unfortunately your views are not enough per Wikipedia's policies. I believe the majority of Earthlings can fly without any aid or support, that doesn't mean it's time for big changes to the human article. No, please read WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 21:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree fully. Wikipedia is certainly not the place to air one's personal views and grievances. If one can verify one's POV using Reliable Sources as Notable in any real way then ok. Otherwise go away. Incidentally, BBC demonstrates that such ridiculous fringe views are contrary to the reality .Rumpelstiltskin223 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7-10 % ever realize the majority of Indians are Hindu? They may be a minority in Kashmir, but just like jews were "cleansed" from Germany, so were Hindus from Kashmir. A "majority" probably think Afzal Guru is a saint as well, even though the facts are arrayed strongly against him. Baka man  01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone knows that India is a Hindu majority. But Kashmir is a Muslim majority. Unless and until the Kashmir dispute is resolved, Kashmir cannot be classified as "Indian", "Pakistani" or "Chinese". The international community classifies Kashmir as a disputed territory. I don't know what you meant to prove by informing me that India is a Hindu majority. I'm not trying to say that its the Pandits fault that they left Kashmir. Like I've said before, the exodus was an unfortunate event that should not have happened. However, the article that you keep posting over and over again is biased because it only reflects one side of the story, which is your side. The article seems like clear propoganda, the likes of which can be found on numerous websites. If the majority of Kashmiri population including democratically elected leaders believe that the exodus was instigated by Jagmohan, I think that the story has a lot of credibility. A lot more than a the numerous propaganda websites that are run by Pandits, who let me inform you again were less than 5 percent of the population during the Hindu rule in Kashmir. I know that you are completely unwilling to listen to what 95 percent of Kashmiri's have to say about what is going on because thats not the story you want the whole world to hear. The truth is that you are just jumping on the Islamic fundamentalism bandwagon and trying to use the negative image of Islam in your favor. I dislike fundamentalists and terrorists as much as you do, however the blame for the exodus does not lie with Kashmiri Muslims. I have been to Kashmir on numerous occasions and spoken to hundreds of people about the Pandit situation. They want the Pandits back as much as you want to go back (atleast most of them). It is totally wrong to try to make this look like an us versus the muslims situation. Whatever it is that you're trying to make it look like, its my duty to inform the wikipedia community of what a vast majority of Kashmiri's believe to be reality. The pandits represent a very small minority and their views cannot be considered to be divine truth. If you think the majority of Humans can just fly, you are entitled to your view but the fact is that the majority doesnt agree with you. You have a right to keep and display your opinion, but your opinion should not be in an encyclopedia unless you can convince the majority of Kashmiri's to believe what you think is true.

What is it that you are trying to achieve? Do you want the world community to take notice and make way for you to get back into Kashmir? Firstly, good luck! Look at how loud the Palestinian refugees have been crying? Do you see a solution? I know you are trying to get more publicity for your "cause" but unless you are willing to sit down and discuss the situation with the same Kashmiri muslims whom you falsely try to portray as the wrongdoers, do you think that you will ever be safe and secure in Kashmir. Kashmir is no longer under autocratic rule like you are used to. Even if you get to go back to Kashmir, you will have to live under the Muslim majority. So before you make derogatory comments about the gentle population of Kashmir, please think over the consequences.

And by the way, I cited everything this time over. The population of Hindus at the time of the Hindu rule was less than 5 percent and I've cited this. I have also said that the Pandits think its around 15%. However, if you want to edit that, you better have a good souce.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worshipfulmaster (talk • contribs).


 * Please see Holocaust denial. Also, see The protocols of the elders of zion. FYI, majority of the worlds population thinks that Holocaust was a zionist conspiracy. Sighhhhhhhhh!!! -nids(&#9794;) 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you provide sources for A) that the majority of Kashmiris believe Jagmohan instigated it and B) that the majority of Kashmiris want the Pandits back and C) write this in neutral terms along with the other arguments. Then your views can be incorporated.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh please dont amuse yourself my equating your condition to that of the Jews during the Holocaust. The popular beliefs of the majority are rightly expressed by their elected representatives. Especially when the elected representatives were elected 3 terms in a row. So it should the citings of the Chief Minister and the current president of National Conference should be enough.

You can go ahead and keep deleting my edits indiscriminately. Like I said, two can play this game.


 * No, I'm being serious, you HAVE to provide sources for everything you say otherwise you are liable to be blocked in a case of revert warring.  Noble eagle  [TALK] [C] 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both sides need to provide references. If the "Jagmohan ordered it" side limits itself to reporting the statements of elected Kashmiri leaders to that effect, then a sentence that says "elected Kashmiri politicians have maintained that..." can be included, with a link to the interview. The other side, that the movement was largely spontaneous and responding to intimidation, can link to news reports, preferably from Western newspapers.
 * The tribe stuff doesnt really need an answer, surely? This lost tribe thing is always vastly amusing. Hornplease 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars
Guys, pls let us not use this page to spread propaganda. Let us not have an edit war here. A little restraint from all parties can go a long way in making this article a featured article.

- Devil (feb 16th 2007)

citation #6
I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around the end of this paragraph

"Recently, independent agencies have conducted opinion polls and drawn the conclusion that the majority indeed favors secession from both India and Pakistan. The pollsters also concluded that Kashmiri public opinion overall is relatively more pro-Indian than pro-Pakistani. [6]"

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/20/content_292117.htm

Upon reading the citation given I couldn't find any hard data or lines that confirmed that most Kasmiris are more Pro-Indian the Pro-Pakistani. Maybe I'm just being dense but would someone care to copy/paste the part of the document that supports the above statement onto the talk page? 71.235.41.187 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alot of Indian arguments are left out
There is no mention of India argueing that Paksitan just wants Kashmir for the water supply from the INdus river.....There is no mention of the fact that many Indians feel like Paksitan already got so much land from India so what right do they have to want Kashmir?.....There is no mention of the fact that Pakistan started the whole thing by invading Kashmir more then once, and stoled half of Kashmir illegally, so therefore they have no right to ask for the rest of Kashmir....There is no mention of the fact that Indians argue that if it is true that most Kashmiris want to side with Pakistan, then by that logic, the country of Pakistan should never have been created in the first place because most Indian people were against breaking up India for a seperate Pakistan homeland.....There is no mention of the fact that Paksitan contradicts itself by claiming they want to help "free" Kashmiris and yet they dont let the Balochis or Pashtuns that want to seperate from Paksitan & let them have there own seperate homeland.....There is no mention of the Sheik (last name i forgot but he was considered the voice of pakistan) who said Kashmir belongs to India.....There is no mention of the fact that Pakistan sends in Islamic terrorist groups to Kashmir, and these groups have systematically forced out HIndu & SIkh Kashmiris, while also scaring Muslim Kashmiris that may want to side with India, and so therefore it is unfair to ask for a vote from the Kashmiris.....And there is nothing written about the fact that if Pakistan really cared about the Kashmiri people then why would they give a piece of Kashmir to China in 1965.... Aryan100 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia goes only by what the reliable sources (internationally recognized academic journals and tertiary sources like Britannica) say on the matter, not by the popular sentiment.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Will explain a little more later when I have time.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Its been over a year....any explanations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics Repeat
I would like to express my thanks to those who are working on improving the quality of this article. I recently noticed that the same Demographics statistics are given in the introduction and under the Demographics section of the article. As a result, I feel that the paragraph in the introduction is superfluous and that information regarding the population of the Kashmir region should be given only under the Demographics section. However, there may be a reason why it is repeated in the introduction that I may be unaware of. If this is the case, please kindly excuse my comment. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have condensed the demographics in the lead. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Muslim Women
The women in the picture in the Culture and Cuisine section are in fact Muslim. Here is the reason. The picture of the women was taken at 16:23, 11 September 2005. See the metadata. Next, see another picture by the same photographer, taken at 16:14, 11 September 2005,. Finally, see the same picture on Flickr (captioned, "Muslim town of Kargil, Ladhakh, nestled in the Himalayas"), here. Clearly, this means that the first picture which was taken 10 minutes after the first, was also taken in Kargil (a Muslim town). The women are therefore Muslim. QED. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Kargil town is 95% Muslim. I guess that still doesn't prove 100% that the women are Muslim.  So, I will change the caption to: "Women from the Muslim town of Kargil, northern Ladhakh".   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

They are Brokpa women..you can tell by the headdress. They are not Muslim; Brokpas practice Buddhism and Bon. There is no logic in saying they are Muslim...being in a Muslim majority district does not automatically one Muslim. Thanks! Okaywhatever (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

language
what languages do kashmiris speak? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.13.85 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Starting in the northwest and proceeding clockwise (see map below right): in the Gilgit and surrounding regions the Shina language is spoken; to the east in the Baltistan region, Balti language is spoken; to its south in the Ladhakh region Ladakhi language is spoken; to its west in the heavily populated Kashmir valley Kashmiri language is spoken; to its south in the Kishtwar valley, the Kashtawari dialect of Kashmiri is spoken; to its south in Jammu, the Dogri language is spoken; and finally to its northwest in the Pir Panjal hills, the Punchhi and Chibhali languages are spoken. I will add a (more detailed) Languages section on the page later.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The name should be "Jammu and Kashmir"
I gave a source from the United Nations: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/kashmir.pdf

Also in atlases I have, the region is named Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian state is also named Jammu and Kashmir, the UN calls it Jammu and Kashmir Area. You don't change a name only to distinguish it from the state. So Fowler&fowler is totally wrong here and I suppose to move it back to "Jammu and Kashmir Area" or "Jammu and Kashmir area". --Jeroenvrp 10:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is simply following what the other pre-eminent tertiary source, Encyclopaedia Britannica (2007), has chosen to do for the region. It has two pages:


 * Kashmir (2007), whose lead paragraph is: region of the northwestern Indian subcontinent. It is bounded to the northeast by the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang and to the east by the Tibet Autonomous Region (both parts of China), to the south by the Indian states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, to the west by Pakistan, and to the northwest by Afghanistan. The region, with a total area of 85,806 square miles (222,236 square km), has been the subject of dispute between India and Pakistan since the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947. The northern and western portions are administered by Pakistan and comprise three areas: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan, the last two being part of a territory called the Northern Areas. The southern and southeastern portions constitute the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian- and Pakistani-administered portions are divided by a “line of control” agreed to in 1972. In addition, China became active in the eastern area of Kashmir in the 1950s and since 1962 has controlled the northeastern part of Ladakh (the easternmost portion of the region).


 * Jammu and Kashmir(2007) whose lead paragraph is: state of India, located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent in the vicinity of the Karakoram and western Himalayan mountain ranges. The state is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of India in 1947. Formerly one of the largest princely states of India, it is bounded to the northeast by the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang and to the east by the Tibet Autonomous Region (both parts of China), to the south by the states of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab, and to the northwest and west by the Pakistani-administered portion of Kashmir. The administrative capitals are Srinagar in summer and Jammu in winter. Area 39,146 square miles (101,387 square km). Pop. (2001) 10,143,700.

It was decided a long time ago (in Wikipedia) to call the first page "Kashmir region" instead of "Kashmir" (to avoid confusion with "Kashmir valley"), but to have Kashmir redirect to Kashmir region. There is also a dab page Kashmir (disambiguation), which points out the different usages. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know next to nothing on this subject, so I can't really comment at which title it should be located, but in the case where two reliable sources disagree it is always a good idea to find what the most commonly used name is in academic literature. Few single reliable sources can be the final authority on such naming issues. On the other hand, why isn't Kashmir the disambiguation page? That would be the place where I, the not-so-informed-on-this subject-person, would expect it to be. —Ruud 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * @Fowler&amp;fowler: So properly Britannica is also wrong here. Off course "Kashmir" is mostly used, I used it to, but properly because off the international tensions, the UN names it "Jammu and Kashmir". It is also a fact that the Jammu region occupies also a small area in Pakistan. If you look to the history it was also the name of the area during the British period. --Jeroenvrp 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know about the British period (having written much of the history section myself). The British actually called the princely state, "Kashmir and Jammu." I quote from my copy of the Imperial Gazeteer of India, vol 15, 1909, page 70, "The territories of the Maharaja of Kashmir and Jammu may be roughly described in the words of the treaty of March 16, 1846, as 'situated to the eastward of the river Indus and westward of the river Ravi,'  This country, known to the English as  Kashmir and to the Indians as Jammu, covers and area of 80,900 square miles ..."  It was the Maharaja who called his princely state, "Jammu and Kashmir."  And that happened because he was already the Raja of Jammu (territory given to him by the Sikhs for loyalty) at the time (1846) when he purchased the Kashmir valley from the British (also for loyalty), and so his state became "Jammu and Kashmir."  After that Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit were added but the name wasn't changed to include them (see the history section).  See also the British (Indian empire) map I uploaded in the history section (from 1909) which calls  the region "Kashmir."  I am adding the map on the right here: when you look at the map you realize (and do I too each time I look at it again) how small a part of the region "Jammu" really is, or for that matter even the "Kashmir valley" (the original Kashmir"); most of the region is Ladakh, Baltistan, and Gilgit. The UN is stuck with that name because that's what the princely state was called in 1947, when the dispute began, and the disputants, now won't allow the UN to change the name (even if it wanted to).  As you guessed rightly the academic sources use "Kashmir" more for the region.  When I do a Google search for "Kashmir -Jammu site:edu" I get 125,000 hits, whereas with "Jammu and Kashmir site:edu" I get only 25,000.  Here are some other sources (I'll keep adding them as and when I find time).  I provide in parentheses below the name each source uses:
 * Google Scholar: the search for "Kashmir -Jammu" (ie. Kashmir, but not Jammu, to avoid double counting) gives 19,800 hits, but for "Jammu and Kashmir" gives 6,840 hits.
 * Google academic sites search for  i.e. "kashmir -jammu site:edu" gives 125,000 hits, while the academic sites search for  i.e. "jammu and kashmir site:edu" gives 25,100 hits
 * Perry-Casteneda Map Collection (mostly "Kashmir")
 * BBC ("Kashmir")
 * National Geographic (this has "Kashmir," other ones have "Jammu and Kashmir" too)
 * Columbia Encyclopedi ("Kashmir")
 * Encarta ("Jammu and Kashmir")

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh well. You follow more the academic sources and I follow more the UN sources; the ArbCom of the world. I rest my case and I think that you should at least mention the fact that the UN calls it the "Jammu and Kashmir Area". Jeroenvrp 00:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How many of these google hits are specifically about Kashmir (valley)? Amost all? I remember reading about demands to rename the Indian state Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, since at least half the area is actually Ladakh, which is a world apart from Jammu or Kashmir. These three disparate regions, plus the Northern Areas and NWFP, were politically united by the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. (NWFP was separated. in the 1930s). Despite "Kashmir" being arguably inaccurate in many ways, it remains the most commonly used appelation when the whole region is talked about as one. So, I suppose we should keep it. deeptrivia (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeroenvrp, Yes, that's a good idea (to mention that UN calls it J&K). Will do. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Deeptrivia, No, most of them are actually about the whole region (at least they were on the 2 pages I checked; remember these are academic .edu sites). NWFP was never a part of the princely state, which consisted of present-day Indian Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistani Northern Areas and Pakistani Azad Kashmir. However, in 1889, as protection against a perceived Russian menace, the British got the Maharaja to lease Gilgit Agency to them and it was directly administered through a British political agent. It remained leased until early June 1947, when it was returned to the Maharaja. Jammu and Kashmir (as I say above or in the history section) is really of recent vintage in the grand scale of history. In 1820, when Gulab Singh was made Raja of Jammu by the Sikhs, Kashmir was just Kashmir valley, all the other areas, Ladakh, Baltistan, Gilgit, Hunza, Nagar etc. were independent kingdoms and were referred to by their names. But, of course, as you say now, Kashmir is used to mean the whole region. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, as I said earlier, Kashmir is simpler and common name, so I recommend that it stays. However, first two .edu results are personal alumni homepages. On the first page, only two results (UT Austin maps and UFL article) clearly refer to the whole region, the rest are about movies (mission kashmir, kashmir ki kali), ghazals (A Garden of Kashmir), personal photos of kashmir valley, etc. Why would a search like "kashmir -jammu site:edu" be expected to yield results related to the whole region when the Kashmir valley is arguably the much more well known by orders of magnitude not only in politics, but in literature, cinema, trade, and so on? Over half Google scholar results on the first few pages are about patents by inventors Kashmir S. Sabota, Kashmir Singh Gill, Kashmir S. Virk, etc. Next come results that list Kashmir, Chitral, Gilgit, etc separately. I'm not making any point, but just jotting down a general observation about how one should be careful with google tests. History_of_the_Kashmir_conflict says that in 1935 British rulers compelled the Dogra King of Jammu and Kashmir to lease parts of his kingdom, which were to make up the new Province of the North-West Frontier, for 60 years. Perhaps this refers to only the Gilgit agency. It's a bit confusing. Looks like you know a lot about it, so please make it clearer on these articles. Thanks, deeptrivia (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree the .edu sites are not the most relevant. Thanks for the info.  Will look at the History of Kashmir conflict page.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)