Talk:Kashmir/Archive 6

cleaning up the article
I noticed that the article says that the Kashmir region is so dangerous because India and Pakistan could concievably have a nuclear war over it- but the article doesn't mention the fact that the PRC also has nuclear weapons: all three claimants to parts (or all) of Kashmir have nuclear weapons. Obviously the biggest tension is between India and Pakistan, but I'm sure that both of those governments are resentful over the fact that the PRC has control over some of it. -Random Unregistered Guy

The article leaves out tons of reasons on why India feels it deserves Kashmir. I mean when I read this it sounds like the guy favors Kashmir to Pakistan, cuz he fails to mention tons of reasons on why India deserves Kashmir. He also fails to go into details regarding how India legally got Kashmir & he doesnt go into details regarding how Pakistan invaded Kashmir first. He doesnt go into details about the water dispute & how thats the real reason Pakistan wants Kashrmi. He also does not mention how Pakistan contraditcs itself when they calim to fight for peoples freedom struggles because there are 2 groups of people, one called the Balochis that wanna seperate from Pakistan, and the pathuns that also wanna seperate from Paksitan...I mean this article is leaves out a ton of facts & is to long. ARYAN818 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The article, at its current state, is full of sentences like "India believes", which makes it look like an opinion-piece. I tried to convert those to "According to Indian views ...". The Section on Terrorism in Kashmir would probably be better off as merged with Terrorism in Kashmir, with a brief summary here. The history section is awefully long and full of meaningless details. Sometimes, being inclusive of the tiniest details defeats the purpose, and brevity is preferred. The information bloat now affecting the section can be moved to History of Kashmir. In any case, the article needs a good amount of trimming/editing, and the trolls who are quite interested into ranting (see above) can consider participating in the cleanup job. Thanks. --Ragib 01:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This guy is ridiculous. The new section on the Indo-Pak war of 47 is so biased against Pakistan, it sounds like the Indian Army was posting this stuff. I prefered the old section where it was much more balanced. This new section is totally biased, it makes the Indians seem heroic and the Pakistanis barbaric. This new cleanup stuff is trash! The stuff about Pakistan's self-contradiction are not relevent to the topic of this page.69.183.72.142 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Article in its current state is much better and balanced. As i said before, the original was a much better article and it was far more objective than the new version which appeared later.69.183.73.34 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The new section on Kashmir itself sounds like the history of Hindiusm. Kashmir is introduced in such a way that it appears to be more focused on the Hindiusm aspect. This needs to be changed so that Kashmir is introduced in a political and geographical context rather than a religious context. However, the religious aspect of Kashmir shouldn't be disregarded, rather, it should be placed somewhere else in the article in a seperate section for its religious importance for Hindiusm. I edited the page so that the part referring to the Hindu temples comes in the section with the tourist attractions.69.0.82.108 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

now administered by three countries: India, Pakistan, and the People's Republic of China. - should be changed to now occupied by three countries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.179.33 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indians plz note. Try to contribute a balanced article. There are many news regarding indian security forces firing at and killing civilians so if you want to add any comments on hindus ethinic cleansing then please make sure you add indian security forces acrocities as well, otherwise i will keep deleting your evidence less claims. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.29.200 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is not the vegetable shop on your street to bargaining, this is wikipedia and here truth and references are more important. And I know that U are no Admin besides who gave U this news? The guy next door??? Bsathya4 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I get the correct references for this statement in the article : "Once the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession, "Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and started killing innocent Kashmiri People including women and children. The United Nations was then invited by Pakistan to mediate the quarrel." . From what I know, it was tribesmen armed and supported by Pakistani govt, that started the crisis ( Source: Maharaja's letter at http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/documents/documents.html ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswinjohn (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguemnts to add to the Indian point of view section
There are some arguments that can be added to the Indian point of view section. I would add them myself, but I have the feeling it will just be erased. So I will add them here, and let "the powers that be" add them. Here they are:

1 - There is no mention of the fact that many Indians feel like Paksitan already got so much land from India so its unfair to ask for Kashmir?.....

2 - There is no mention of the fact that because Pakistan invaded Kashmir & stole half the land (even though the Prince of Kashmir still hadnt decided which country to join) that it is unfair for Pakistan to ask for the rest of Kashmir.

3 - There is no mention of the fact that Indians argue it is not fair to use the argument that "the majority of people should vote on what country they want to join", becuase by that logic Pakistan should have never been created in the first place because the majority of people didnt want to break up India to create a Pakistan the country in the first place.

4 - There is no mention of the fact that Paksitan contradicts itself by claiming they want to help to "free" Kashmiris and yet they dont let the Balochis or Pashtuns that want to seperate from Paksitan & let them have there own seperate homeland. WHy wont they let the Pashtuns or Balochis be free to?

5 - 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

6 - 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.

7 - 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.

These are all valid arguments and I would type these in myself but I have the feeling that they might just be erased. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC).


 * Thumbs up. YoshiroShin (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2 million people in the Aksai Chin?
Where does this number come from? The Aksai Chin is an uninhabited wasteland and clearly does not have 2 million people, Buddhists or not. The entirely of Chinese controlled Tibet has less than three million people, and they don't surely don't have 2/3 of the population crammed into the Aksai Chin. This needs to be fixed. --67.101.35.52 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The unlikely numbers were introduced in this edit.  Aqsoi Qin and other regions just above and below the Kunlun Mountains in Xinjiang are some of the few areas in China where the human population might have actually decreased in the last 60 years.  See for example, Karakash River, Hotan, and Hindutash Pass.  Have undone edit.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Images
There seems to be a heavy influence of images taken from Indian administered Kashmir and only one from Azad Kashmir can some one tell my why this article is so heavily Influenced by images from India it seems to undercut Pakistan Kashmir i will replace this soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.149.182 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear IP from British Telecommunications: How did you arrive at that conclusion? There is one image of Nanga Parbat, which is not in Azad Kashmir, but rather in the Northern Areas, and two from Jammu and Kashmir, and one (strangely enough) from New Delhi.  The rest of the pictures are all over a hundred years old, all from the princely state Kashmir and Jammu, when there was no Pakistan or Republic of India.  The pictures were deliberately chosen in that manner to avoid controversy. If you feel that the Pakistani or Chinese areas of Kashmir should be better represented, the way to go about doing it is to add quality pictures from those areas, not unilaterally remove other pictures.  I agree though that the New Delhi picture doesn't seem very relevant.  I will move it here, pending further discussion.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Have removed the Kashmiri merchant in Delhi picture from the main article to here. Doesn't seem very relevant. It would be better to have pictures of merchants in Kashmir. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now made the contemporary images more representative of the different regions. I have also removed the instrument of accession, which doesn't belong here.  It has its own page.  This page is mostly about the Kashmir Region as it existed until 1947.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.209.213 (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits by user:Shovon76
has made two edits which s/he needs to discuss here first. As has been explained many times before (above), this article used to be titled Kashmir region and, consequently, is about the region, not just about the Kashmir Valley, and certainly not about political entities like Jammu and Kashmir or Azad Kashmir. The languages listed in the first sentence are listed in alphabetical order, since no one language represents the entire region. Also, seems to have added a reference to an article by William Dalrymple to the list of websites providing information about Kashmir. Articles are properly listed in the "Further Readings" section. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

led zeppelin in see also????!
i feel that the led zep song is quite irreverent to thew article

led zeppelin in see also????!
i feel that the led zep song is quite irreverent to thew article 59.182.170.73 (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)nish

'crossed the LOC'
I don't know what an LOC is and the link doesn't help. can someone write it out in full? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.12.36 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearer map?
It would be nice to get a much clearer map of the area; the map supplied shows some geography distorted and is very cluttered. One thing hard to discern are nearby undisputed borders, such as the northern border to China and the Durand line. --Smári McCarthy (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

vandalism after Mumbai attacks
Trafic to this article increased 3 fold after Mumbai attacks. http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/kashmir I rectified a IP troll 203.122.36.6 Doorvery far (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nationalistic oneupmanship
Please no nationalistic nickel and diming, be it Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani. The regions administered by each country have their own pages. This page is mostly about the Kashmir region up to 1947. Any detailed material such as demographics of Jammu and Kashmir in 2001 or Azad Kashmir in 1998 etc all belong to their individual pages, not here. The pictures on this page are balanced with respect to the three regions, so please don't change them or add new ones before you discuss them here. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First Timer - grammar correction
Hey folks, this is my first edit. Was reading about the India/Pakistan situation today and needed a Kashmir refresher. Anyhow, hope this edit (militant violent to militant violence) is appropriate and correctly submitted. I'm still not happy with "as militant violence engulfed the state." Might be better as: - military violence - violence by militants - violence DaveMarkman (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit is most correct, as that is exacly what the source says. I too don't much like the term "militant violence", so I've added quotation marks ("as militant violence engulfed the state"). Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Persian
Before the British invasion of Hindustan, "Persian" was the OFFICIAL language of Hindustan, including the kashmir. --Wayiran (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately whether or not it was the official language in the past - the fact is that it is not now and is not widely spoken either. Pahari Sahib 11:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the language in which the term has been used in the past officially and widely for centuries, should be placed next to the term. --Wayiran (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are suggesting that Nilamata Purana was written in Persian, you have to provide a reference for that. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will provide the reference before adding Persian for the next time, but may I know why for "Nilamata Purana"? --Wayiran (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the etymology section of the article.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked, but I didn't get my answer. Can you please specify which part? (Copy that part over here) --Wayiran (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

These are few examples which are shownig the use of the term "کشمیر" (Kashmir) in Persian poetry, since around 1000 AC up to now: --Wayiran (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many other languages (want to count how many Indian languages are there?) in which the word 'Kashmir' has been and is being used. That logic does not prompt us to add Kashmir's name in all those languages here (English Wikipedia).--GDibyendu (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Irredentist edits on related pages
I am bringing to your attention some pages related historically to the Kashmir region that have been the focus of irredentist edits, especially by one editor, user:Hindutashravi. The pages are Hindutash, Sumgal, and Aksai Chin. The editor is claiming the region between Aksai Chin and the Kunlun Mountains for the Republic of India; this even the Government of India doesn't claim. See in particular, my post at the end here for my perspective on these edits. In addition, one image file, File:Hindutash_in_Kashmir.jpg, which claims belongs to the Simla Convention of 1913, but which seems at the very least illegible and at the worst bogus, needs to be deleted. I would urge NPOV-minded editors to help out in countering such bizarre POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS The editor claims that Hindutash is his page, however, this was the state of the page that was created by the user:Hindutashravi (before I made my first edit on 8 July 2007). This is what the page became as a result of my edits by July 10, 2007.  All the references and maps were added by me, and some, such as the NASA map, were even labeled by me.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These are reasonable concerns to raise, especially the idea that a user has some personal relationship with any page. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Page protected due to recent edit warring. Tan  &#124;  39  14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

'''== Short history ==

The history of Kashmir Valley is more than clear upto 1148 A.D. Read the Rajatarignini. There is no mention of any Kamboj people in this region. The area is and remainms purely Aryan.'''

Surely the history of this region is longer? Faro0485 (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave link to the main article. Now interested can trim the history section. Doorvery far (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

External Link pertaining to the Letter of Baroness Nicholson
What was the territorial Extent of Kashmir when she acceded to the Republic of India on 26 October 1947? I have added an external link viz. the Letter of  [Baroness Nicholson] to Ambassador, Embassy  of the Islamic republic of  Pakistan dated 22, May 2007 which inter alia refers to the 1909 “Official”  map of Kashmir  which inter alia depicts parts of the Taghdumbash Pamir, Raskam and the Aksai Chin area as integral part of Kashmir. The said map was referred by Baroness Nicholson to prove that the so called Northern Areas are also an integral Part of Kashmir and the said Northern Areas also became part of India when the State of Kashmir acceded to India. While the depiction of the external Border of Kashmir  in the 1909 map is admittedly not authentic since inter alia there were different versions of official depictions pertaining to the pre-1947 period and  while the survey of India also in some of its Official maps did not at all depict the northern border of Kashmir but simply used the legend “Border Undefined”, there were other Survey of India maps of Kashmir which unequivocally depicted the northern border on the Kuen Lun Range depicting the Taghdumbash Pamir and Raskam up to the crest of the Kuen Lun range  and the Survey of India map pertaining to the Survey of  W.H. Johnson  also depicted the northeastern border on the Kuen Lun range at Hindutash[] pass in Kashmir. The aforesaid letter also refers to the Correspondence of the Maharaja of Kashmir dated October 26, 1947 to Lord Mountbatten, Governor General of India, where in It is observed that Kashmir inter alia shares a border with the “Soviet Republic”. When the State of Kashmir acceded to India, the territorial extent of Kashmir was enumerated in the Constitution of India in Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India. Entry 15 reads “The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir”. The Statement in the aforesaid Entry 15 thus  without and iota of doubt includes the areas that were part of Kashmir when she  acceded to India, including  inter alia the Taghdumbash Pamir, Raskam, Hindutash[] and the rest of the Aksai Chin area. It is because the Taghdumbash Pamir area of Dafdar is an integral part of Kashmir, that the Maharaja of Kashmir in his Correspondence dated October 26, 1947  to Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India,  observed that Kashmir inter alia shares a border with the “Soviet Republic”. Entry 15 in the First Schedule of the Constitution of India has never been amended. However, in 1954, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru who happened to hold the office of the  Prime Minister of India  had,  out of the blue stealthily and surreptitiously published for the first time, a new map of Kashmir depicting these areas like the Taghdumbash Pamir which became an integral part of India with  the accession of the  State “in its entirety  to the new  dominion of India”,  as not part of India with out any legal sanction and by not adhering to the due process of law. So the issue is since the Government of India illegally publishes a wrong map of Kashmir defying the Constitution of India, and not depicting inter alia the Taghdumbash Pamir as part of Kashmir, these areas like inter alia the Taghdumbash Pamir, Raskam, Hindutash[] Pass and the Crests of the Kuen Lun range and beyond does not ipso facto cease to remain part of Kashmir because in India the Constitution of India is Supreme and sacrosanct is what I have stated in the Hindutash Talk page.Hindutashravi (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" would, in all probability, be described in the Instrument of Accession. So, please look for the details there and if possible, post a link to the same. Regards,SBC-YPR (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not even read my previous message properly or understood the meaning. I repeat again the Maharaja of Kashmir in his Correspondence dated October 26, 1947 to Lord Mountbatten , Governor General of India, observed that Kashmir inter alia shares a border with the “Soviet Republic”. This was during the time of the accession of the State of Kashmir to the rest of India. The said correspondence is also provided in the external link viz. the Letter of Baroness Nicholson. For your kind information it was not just the Maharaja who said it, Pandit Nehru also said the same. To quote Nehru himself from his telegram dated 26 October, 1947 to the British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, he says, "Kashmir's Northern frontiers, as you are aware, run in common with those of three countries, Afghanistan, `the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' and `China' ". This is only possible only because inter alia Dafdar in the Taghdumbash Pamir in Kanjut is part of Kashmir. Look how the present  maps of Kashmir are being illegally depicted. What happened of the border of Kashmir with the “Soviet Union” or its successor State? The border is depicted illegally on the Khunjerab and Mintaka pass and there is no border at all with the “Soviet Union” because the Taghdumbash Pamir  wherein is Dafdar, the northernmost part of India is situate,  is illegally not depicted as part of India from 1954 onwards. Just study the map of Kashmir. Most Indians are oblivious of map reading. If you are ignorant about an issue please do not interfere. Regards. Hindutashravi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Edit: iqbal lone Bandipora J&K  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.116.19 (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And Miss/ Mr. Doorvery far, Allegedly the maps are unreliable , The aforesaid statements of none other than the Maharaja of Kashmir and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru also must surely be  equally “unreliable”. Right! Hindutashravi (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You should give a proper inline citation for the challenged sentence, not random external link. Hunza you are inserting is now part of northern areas, and I have added Trans Karakoram tract. Please work towards consensus, Regards. Doorvery far (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is the name of the whole region
Jammu and Kashmir is not only the name of the Indian state, but of the whole region as well. The UN uses this denomination: http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc20jan48.htm. I'm renaming both this and the Indian state pages in order to disambiguate. Ladril (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please go through WP:MOVE, WP:PLACE and WP:CON before moving a page. Oniongas (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Kashmir valley is known as Kashmir only. Jammu region is known as Jammu not Jammu and Kashmir. Ladakh is known as Ladakh. and all the three as a state is known as Jammu and Kashmir. Oniongas (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to step on your toes, but in order to avoid a revert war I suggest we seek third party mediation. I'm willing to hear your extended argument first, and if I'm still not satisfied I'll make counter-arguments. Deal? Ladril (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jammu and Kashmir is not the name of the entire region. It was used by the UN only because it was the name of the princely state.  But the princely state itself was not that old.  The Dogras bought the Kashmir valley from the British in 1848, and didn't conquer major regions of Ladakh, Baltistan, Nagar, Hunza until much later.  In the Imperial Gazetteer of India, it was called "Kashmir and Jammu,"  the Dogras, however, who before 1848, were only Rajas of Jammu, changed it themselves to "Jammu and Kashmir."  The other tertiary sources, such as Britannica, simply call it Kashmir.  This page is modeled on the Britannica version, and used to be called "Kashmir region" until 2008.  Please don't waste time by reviving old discussions.  Please see talk archives.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I'm trying to make is that, regardless of the precise historical detail, Jammu and Kashmir is a common use name used to refer to the entire region (lots of serious non-UN sources use it). Wikipedia is meant to be adapted for the general user, not the specialist, and because of that common names should be included in the pages even if they are incorrect (one example: many people incorrectly refer to the USA as "America". if you do a Wikipedia search for "America" you are led to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America which, among other things, leads to the USA page). Same should be for us who did not know it is incorrect to use "Jammu and Kashmir" to refer to the entire region. All this in the interest to improve the encyclopedia, not to waste time, remember?. Ladril (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 'official' name of this area is 'Jammu and Kashmir' and the name Kashmir is used as it is easier to say for non natives (kind of like a nickname).   Encarta and Encyclopedia Brittanica use Jammu and Kashmir for the article describing this area.  Wikireader41 (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that the official name is "J&K", but rather that the search for Jammu & Kashmir should lead to the disambiguation page, and that an explanation should be added that this is not the correct name for the region, if that is indeed the case. Otherwise the uninitiated like myself end up confused when searching for info on the encyclopedia. Ladril (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the hatnotes on both this and the Jammu and Kashmir pages already address my concern. I won't be insisting on any further changes for now. Ladril (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree that Jammu and Kashmir is the official name of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh regions but Kashmir is also correct name for the valley which is in the J&K State and article is about that particular region or valley and not for the whole Jammu & Kashmir. There is a separate article for whole Jammu and Kashmir state. ALSO Its clearly mentioned in article that Kashmir valley is a part of Jammu and Kashmir state. Oniongas (talk)


 * Am I wrong? As I understand it, this is the article that comprises the entire area consisting of Kashmir, Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Baltistan. As far as I know the whole area is under dispute mostly by Pakistan and India. There is no separate article for the Kashmir Valley if that's what you mean. Sorry if I seem slow but I don't grasp your point. Ladril (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an article for Jammu region similarly, and maybe Ladakh too. Doorvery far (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an article for each of Jammu, Ladakh, Gilgit and Baltistan, but not for the Kashmir valley itself. It seems there was one in the past but it was merged with this article. Ladril (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, Kashmir valley deserved to be merged with Kashmir article. That's why a separate section there. Though Muzaffarabad is not in the valley, they say it belongs to "Kashmir". But Jhelum flows to Muzaffarabad after Srinagar. Doorvery far (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be something in this article about the Led Zeppelin song "Kashmir"
The song is amazing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, it's irrelivent.Brando26000 (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Kashmir as a country!!!!!
I am shocked to see Kashmir listed as country with its own flag in a reputed site like Wikipedia!!! My son came across this when he was trying to do some research on countries and their national animals! Talk about free enterprise on the internet!!. If creating new countries was this easy on Wikipedia, I guess each of us can have our own Kingdoms!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.118.206 (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is this mentioned? Actually that might be vandalism which was overlooked. Harsh

Mujhse baat kijiye(Talk) 14:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * both parts of kashmir have their own flag and constitution.indian kashmir flag is red in color,with white stripes and a plough mark on it.It is compulsory to have this flag side by side with indian flag.Also indian kashmir has its own constitution.And all this has been guaranteed under article 370 of indian constitution. While on the other hand Pakistani Kashmir (Azad Kashmir) is Yellow Sheet on left and Crescent Moon with Star inside Green sheet on Right and on downward White and Green coloured lines are shown. It is compulsory to have this flag side by side with Pakistani Flag. Also Pakistani Azad Kashmir has its own constitution.

Kashmir Hindus - Brahmins - Kashmiri Pandits - Arya Hindus - Aryan homeland
There was some stuff in section, nearly unreadable and not belonging there: -- Tomdo08 (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kashmir Hindus or Brahmins, also called Kashmiri Pandits since Kashmiri Hindus has no caste system as Vedic Arya Hindus (Kashmir described as Aryan homeland by many famous scholars )

Uighur spelling
Bad wiki-syntax repaired in this chapter. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For the Uighur(/Uyghur) spelling of the name, the language used is not Uighur. The correct spelling for Uighur should be as given here: كەشمىر

Edit request from Zapages, 26 July 2010
Bad wiki-syntax repaired in this chapter. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars." However, Pakistan has a different view. The "Pathan agitators" were not from Peshawar. Rather, they were local Kashmiris who did not want to be part of India. Furthermore, the Maharaja of Kashmir had no right to call in the Indian Army, because the Maharaja of Kashmir was not a heredity ruler. He was merely a British appointee. There had been no such position as the "Maharaja of Kashmir" prior to British rule. Finally, the agreement was that any areas more than 70% Muslim would go to Pakistan.


 * Thanks for the edit request. Unfortunately, http://www.anusha.com/kashmir.htm does not constitute a reliable source and you'll need to get consensus for this text before the edit can be made. Also, the text itself is copied verbatim from the website and, with no clear copyright information available, this is likely a copyright infringement. Regards.

There is talk about prosecution of kashmiri pandits,during sultan sikander rule,but why isnt there any mention of atrocities committed by sikhs,dogras and indian rulers,on muslims.Thousands of muslims were killed during sikh and dogra rule.The grand mosque,jamia masjid,was locked for 25 years during sikh rule,muslims were taken for forced labour(begar)hindu dogra rule.Two lakh muslims were killed in jammu region during 1947 ethinic cleansing and lakhs migrated to Pakistan.Thousands have been killed during the hindu indian rule.Please make mention of this also.Otherwise this whole article would be considered to be biased and prejudiced.

Kashmir Pakistan ka hay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.0.89 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Pls remove the sentence "Kashmir described as Aryan homeland by many famous scholars". It is total nonsense. No place has been till date authoritatively describled as Aryan homeland. Certain hypothesis point to Anatolia and other parts of the Mediterranean; but none of them to Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.82.53 (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems, my edit (see below) already resolved this request. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Due to unchecked bad wiki-syntax in chapter Edit request from Zapages, 26 July 2010 small amount of editing of the previous sections was necessary. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reference, wrongly placed
The following reference was placed in article chapter. It is interesting, but it does not account for the statement it was placed after:

-- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Some biased links
In the links part of the page, there is a link to "in depth coverage" of kashmir. i went there looking for news and dsicovered it was a pro-muslim anti west site, with articles calling to bomb israel etc. why is it included in the links? please remove it or add a warning

Lior —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.225.144 (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be deleted. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Raahulworld2004, 13 November 2010
Tourism The Amarnath caves are one of the most famous shrines in Hinduism, dedicated to the god Shiva, located in the Indian administered Kashmir. The shrine is claimed to be over 5,000 years old and forms an important part of Hindu mythology.It is a popular pilgrimage destination for Hindus - about 400,000 people visit during the 45-day season around the festival of Shravani Mela in July-August, coinciding with the Hindu holy month of Shraavana ^ "New shrine on Amarnath route". The Hindu. 2005-05-30. ^ a b "Amarnathji Yatra - a journey into faith". Official If you need more references,its there in the end of the wikipedia article 'Amarnath Cave or Amarnath Temple'..Please note,above lines are same as the starting text of the wikipedia article i mentioned above.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Rpatil 15:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As mentioned below, please provide a reliable source to verify these claims; after you have such a source, please make another Edit semi-protected request. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in kashmir
I dont see any reference to ..Kashmir is known throughout its history for its beautiful landscapes and natural beauty..Please mention it in kashmir section without which this article seems incomplete..Thank you Let me specify what i wabt with this article,1-The article of 'kashmir' needs a section 'tourism' as it is a famous tourist destination.The regions of kashmir valley,ladakh,Jammu are visited by tourists.please see below the reference 2)references -The pilgrimage to Amarnath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are unfamiliar with wikipedia's use of the term "reference." By that, we mean something that qualifies as a reliable source--details for which can be found in WP:RS.  In short, reliable sources are things like major newspapers, some magazines, academic journals, print books published by reliable publishing companies, government documents, etc.  What you wrote there isn't a reference, it's the name of an event.  I, for one, have no objection to having a tourism section, but we can't add one in without a reference.  Also, please do understand that it is unlikely that we will be able to state "Kashmir is known throughout its history for its beautiful landscapes and natural beauty" unless you can produce a quote from a reliable source saying exactly that.  Wikipedia requires that all information in articles be neutral, not biased in either a positive or negative way.  We can quote the opinions of others (e.g., "Travel Magazine X said that Kashmir is known for..."), but we can't express the opinion ourselves.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Aha! I see that in the section above you did add a link to a source. That looks like it may help.  Let me go take a look. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've gone ahead and added a few sentences based on the 2 BBC articles. I believe that these sentences adequately summarize the info; the Amarnath Temple article has more details on the specific violence and tourist experience there.  I still can't add the specific sentence you asked for, because we have no reference to site that states that it is widely recognized as beautiful, etc.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
That opening paragraph is too long with way too much historical detail that belongs in other sections further down. Mdw0 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.53.17.160, 7 December 2010
173.53.17.160 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC) "Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range."

Please confirm the truth about the term "Kashmir" and its geographic extent - this does not appear to be correct because the geographic area of Kashmir has been in existence for far beyond that time - ruled by various Kings and conquerors. Please do a more detailed genuine non-biased work on finding and documenting the pre 19th century geographic extent of Kashmir - What area would be "Kashir" / "Kashmir". The term "Jammu and Kashmir" is a political game to segregate for political agenda by various countries / government entities in order to divide the area and there by extend their control on the resources of that geographic area - there is another under current by such political forces to further segregate Kashmir into Ladhak, Jammu and Kashmir. What a shame to segregate people for petty political dominance. The existence of that geographic area has been populated and administered over centuries - the history of Kashmir is not taught or brought to light by the countries / governments because it does not serve their political interest. "Jammu" should designate a city and not a region as falsely tossed into geographic description by certain country(ies) as a part of their malafied intentions to segregate and then finally divide that area if need be so that they can continue to dominate the political arena in the region. The funny part is that Himachal Pardesh is been projected to be a part of the great silk route or its tributary - which I am not sure because the art, craft znd the mix of population ethnicity or sub cultures are not seen in Himachal Pardesh. The truth is that if you really want to see a historic trading center in that area - it is Kashmir - you will see a place that is historically enriched by various people who belong to various ethnicities and subcultures - this area has incorporated arts, crafts and architecture from the influence of their trading practices - the most interesting part is that over the centuries people from all around the trading communities using those routes have settled in this geographic region - which is the modern day Kashmir (mis-termed as Jammu and Kashmir). Certain countries also have inappropriately and deliberately used the word Kashmir and Srinagar synonymously. The apparent fact is Kashmir is a historic name for the Nation / Country that has had various regions and provinces.


 * See below (duplicate request). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.53.17.160, 7 December 2010
173.53.17.160 (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) "Until the mid-19th century, the term Kashmir geographically denoted only the valley between the Great Himalayas and the Pir Panjal mountain range."

Please confirm the truth about the term "Kashmir" and its geographic extent - this does not appear to be correct because the geographic area of Kashmir has been in existence for far beyond that time - ruled by various Kings and conquerors. Please do a more detailed genuine non-biased work on finding and documenting the pre 19th century geographic extent of Kashmir - What area would be "Kashir" / "Kashmir". The term "Jammu and Kashmir" is a political game to segregate for political agenda by various countries / government entities in order to divide the area and there by extend their control on the resources of that geographic area - there is another under current by such political forces to further segregate Kashmir into Ladhak, Jammu and Kashmir. What a shame to segregate people for petty political dominance. The existence of that geographic area has been populated and administered over centuries - the history of Kashmir is not taught or brought to light by the countries / governments because it does not serve their political interest. "Jammu" should designate a city and not a region as falsely tossed into geographic description by certain country(ies) as a part of their malafied intentions to segregate and then finally divide that area if need be so that they can continue to dominate the political arena in the region. The funny part is that Himachal Pardesh is been projected to be a part of the great silk route or its tributary - which I am not sure because the art, craft znd the mix of population ethnicity or sub cultures are not seen in Himachal Pardesh. The truth is that if you really want to see a historic trading center in that area - it is Kashmir - you will see a place that is historically enriched by various people who belong to various ethnicities and subcultures - this area has incorporated arts, crafts and architecture from the influence of their trading practices - the most interesting part is that over the centuries people from all around the trading communities using those routes have settled in this geographic region - which is the modern day Kashmir (mis-termed as Jammu and Kashmir). Certain countries also have inappropriately and deliberately used the word Kashmir and Srinagar synonymously. The Kashmiri people have en-mass changed their religion in the past on occasions and the last en-mass conversion was to Islam from Hinduism and have also practiced Buddhism as their dominant religion in the past. The apparent fact is Kashmir is a historic name for the Nation / Country that has had various regions, provinces and cities. I do not feel that the historic boundaries of "Kashmir" are denoted by the valley only - that appears to be incorrect. Please try to find the historic archives of Kashmir - unfortunately these have been systematically destroyed over the centuries by its occupying forces - even the last hope finding some tit-bits have been burnt down in the fire of S.P Museum in Srinagar. If you truly see the existence of Kashmir it has almost constantly been an enslaved and occupied Nation for a few centuries - sold, conquered and gifted to others over these past few centuries. What a human tragedy and a shame for the human existence which is carried on into this new age / era.

Done Despite the fact that most of what you write here is somewhere between personal opinion and original research, I actually agree with your main point. The statement you pointed to in the article has been unsourced since January 2009. Now, statements in the lead don't actually have to be sourced, as long as the rest of the article makes it clear where that information came from. However, I don't see anything in the History section that matches the claim that "Kashmir" originally only meant "Kashmir Valley." So I removed the statement. If anyone has a source for that statement, it could be re-added.

Additional note to the IP: In the future, I recommend that you stay focused on this actual article, and (when making an edit request) only on the point you need to make. When I first saw the long POV argument, I was tempted just to ignore it. Talk pages are the place to discuss specific changes to the article based on reliable sources. They're not the place for personal essays about the general topic. This is especially important on topics like this one that are extremely contentious and likely to have conflict between editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.53.17.160, 8 December 2010
173.53.17.160 (talk) 07:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Please verify and incorporate the following information:

1) About Burzahom area which is supposed to be a dwelling from the Neolithic Age / the New Stone Age Period. (This is a fact)

2) About Khokas and Nagas of kashmir. (There is lack of historic documents - there may be some at the University of Kashmir).

The following is about hear say and local belief in certain areas of Kashmir region: Unfortunately there has been lack of archeological work in Kashmir - you will be surprised to know that some of the mountains are named after some Christan / Jewish / Muslim Prophets as the local belief is that these Prophets had visited those area and worshiped / prayed there: Suleiman Teing (called Chankracharya) - Suleiman is the same as Solomon and Teing means the mountain / hill. Musa Phad (called Thatakuti) - Musa is the same as Moses and Phad means mountain. There are also stories that Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) also traveled through the geographic area of Kashmir.

It would be great if archeologist start some work in this area.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You are misunderstanding how edit requests work. You may not request that we "verify" something. If you want to add information, it is your responsibility to do the research, find the reliable sources, and provide them, along with the exact sentences you want added to the article and where you want it added. Basically, it's exactly the same as if you could edit the article yourself; the fact that you're using an edit request is just because we have the article semi-protected. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

antcient dwelling at Burzahom in Kashmir
Evidence of Surgery in Ancient India: Trepanation at Burzahom (Kashmir) over 4000 years ago. By Dr. Anek R. Sankhyan and George Weber. Printed in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:375-380, 2001 I am quoting this article to reflect the antcient dwelling at Burzahom in Kashmir (it is controversial to call Kashmir a part of any other regonal country). Never the less the main aim is to communicate that there is an ancient dwelling in Burzahom in Kashmir. The web link to the article is: http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/reprints/sankhyan/burzahom.htm The artocle abstrat is as follows: "The article describes a neolithic skeleton with multiple-trepanated skull found in Kashmir, the archaeological circumstances of the find, the dating, the background, the skeletal evidence, the details of the trepanation and possible affiliations to the Indus civilization. It speculates briefly about possible medical grounds for the surgery.

The surgical practice of trepanation (also known as or trephination or trephining) is the craniotomy or drilling/cutting through the skull vault of a living or recently deceased person. As a surgical operation it was widely established in many ancient societies of the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia (Brothwell, 1994). Squier (1863-65) and Broca (1867, 1876) were among the first to draw attention to the antiquity of this practice in Peru. Piggot (1940) thought that it had begun in Europe around 5000 BP. In Asia trepanation is evident around 4000 BP in the Bronze Age of Jericho in Palestine (Parry and Starkey, 1936; Giles, 1953). Brothwell (1994) stressed the need for reconsidering the origins and diffusion of this ancient practice which he thought had probably begun 4000 to 5000 years ago. He thought that the techniques of trepanation were similar across all continents and that they could throw new and useful light on the prehistoric movements of people and the transfer of surgical skills from one society to another.

The present article wants to draw attention to trepanation in prehistoric India in general and to a multi-trephined skull from the Neolithic pit-dwellers of Burzahom in the Kashmir Valley of the north-western Himalayas in particular.

Trepanation is known from the Bronze Age Harappan (ca. 4300 BP) people of the Indus Valley Civilisation. Sarkar (1972) attributed a squarish hole on the right temporal skull of a child of 9-10 years skull found at Lothal, a Harappan site. Roy Chowdhury (1973) also believed that evidence of trepanation was present in Harappan skull No. H 796/B and H 802/B, from Cemetery R37 and possibly in a Kalibangan skull (another Harappan site) in Western India. A megalithic skull (M30) from Maski (Karnataka) in South India also showed evidence of trepanation (Sarkar, 1972): it has two circular holes of 22 mm and 15 mm respectively on the either side of the sagittal suture of the vertex. However, the authors are of the opinion that the Burzahom skull presents a better, unequivocal case for multiple trepanation in India. It is this skull that we shall discuss below." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The following is a direct coat from "Burzahom and Origin of Kashmiris. Date Published: 14th January 2007. Bookmark and Share Republish this article. Author: M.Ashraf". Read more at http://www.articlealley.com/article_120033_22.html?ktrack=kcplink.

"The other places where these sites were discovered are Begagund, Gofkral, Hariparigom, Olchibag, Pampur, Panzgom, Sombur, Waztal and Brah............Subsequently the Neolithic Dwellers of Kashmir got mixed with a number of waves of Aryans, Scythians, and probably Israelites to evolve into present day Kashmiris. The external rule of Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, and Dogras has had its own influence upon the lives of local people." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are recommending that the above go into the article, please propose what you think we should add, specifically. We cannot add a large block of quoted text.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gnugen, 15 December 2010
The first sentence ("Currently, the name Kashmir is used for a the area that includes...") has an extra "a" and should read "Currently, the name Kashmir is used for the area that includes...".

Gnugen (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

{ESp|d}} Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please include the following paragraph - I have included references for review.

There are several Neolithic Age Pit-Dwellings which are about 3000 BC found in the Valley of Kashmir, the first was found at Burzahom which is 10 killometers northeast of Srinagar and the subsequent findings were at Begagund, Brah, Gofkral, Hariparigom, Jayadevi-udar, Olichibag, Pampur, Panzogom, Sombur, Thajiwor and Waztal. The skeletal findings of multi-trephined skull from Burzahom are consistent with the historic evidence of surgical intervention on living people. They were proficient in making tools and pottery in the earlier dwellings and latter on there is evidence of jewelry. The stone carvings indicate their astronomical insight, and it is proposed that it depicts the first every record of the ancient night sky which shows the moon and a supernova or it shows two suns indicating the duration of the hunt of a deer. It is thought that these dwellers of Kashmir intermixed with Aryans, Scythians and Israelites. In the recent few hundred years the original Kashmiri people have been subjected to foreign rulers which range from Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, and Dogras.

Refrences: 1)	Evidence of Surgery in Ancient India: Trepanation at Burzahom (Kashmir) over 4000 years ago. By Dr. Anek R. Sankhyan and George Weber. Printed in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:375-380, 2001 2)	Burzahom and Origin of Kashmiris. Date Published: 14th January 2007. Bookmark and Share Republish this article. Author: M.Ashraf 3)	http://www.kashmirnetwork.com/today/burzahom.html 4)	http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/bce_500back/cavepaintings/gandhictr/gandhictr.html 5)	http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy103.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic Age Pit-Dwellings and people of Kashmir
There are several Neolithic Age Pit-Dwellings which are about 3000 BC found in the Valley of Kashmir, the first was found at Burzahom which is 10 killometers northeast of Srinagar and the subsequent findings were at Begagund, Brah, Gofkral, Hariparigom, Jayadevi-udar, Olichibag, Pampur, Panzogom, Sombur, Thajiwor and Waztal. The skeletal findings of multi-trephined skull from Burzahom are consistent with the historic evidence of surgical intervention on living people. They were proficient in making tools and pottery in the earlier dwellings and latter on there is evidence of jewelry. The stone carvings indicate their astronomical insight, and it is proposed that it depicts the first every record of the ancient night sky which shows the moon and a supernova or it shows two suns indicating the duration of the hunt of a deer. It is thought that these dwellers of Kashmir intermixed with Aryans, Scythians and Israelites. In the recent few hundred years the original Kashmiri people have been subjected to foreign rulers which range from Mughals, Afghans, Sikhs, and Dogras.

Refrences: 1) Evidence of Surgery in Ancient India: Trepanation at Burzahom (Kashmir) over 4000 years ago. By Dr. Anek R. Sankhyan and George Weber. Printed in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 11:375-380, 2001 2) Burzahom and Origin of Kashmiris. Date Published: 14th January 2007. Bookmark and Share Republish this article. Author: M.Ashraf 3) http://www.kashmirnetwork.com/today/burzahom.html 4) http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/mealac/pritchett/00routesdata/bce_500back/cavepaintings/gandhictr/gandhictr.html 5) http://journalofcosmology.com/AncientAstronomy103.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk) 07:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.17.160 (talk)

File_talk:India_location_map.svg
I was looking at the article for the 2011 Cricket world cup, when I noticed some discussion about the in use there. They were redirected to the file talk (see title of this new section) Someone had raised an issue to do with India and Kashmir that I didn't quite follow, that I noticed hadn't been followed up. I am, unfortunately, rather ignorant of such things, knowing nothing other than there are some geo-political sensitivities involved here. I just wonder if someone who has a working knowledge of the sensitivities of such things might have an interest in following this up? I'd also be interested in the resolution. This is the map in question-->. Thanks, Comes.amanuensis (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks cable and "Systemic abuses"
My opinion is that the last sentence of the lead needs to be removed for several reasons. For one, it violates WP:LEAD, because it hints at information that is not described more fully in the article. But, more importantly, I believe the information is fundamentally unencyclopedic. First, the information in the story is based on Wikileaks; note that the Guardian never says that any of these things happened, only that they were reported on by leaked cables. Furthermore, note that the cables themselves also don't assert that there were "widespread systemic abuses by India"—rather, they say that U.S. diplomats were briefed about or were concerned about such abuses. There is no reliable evidence here that anything actually occurred other than some diplomats being briefed by some external groups about something that may be happening. That is not the standard of evidence we require at Wikipedia. So, if others insist upon including this, we need to 1) describe the information in more detail in the body of the article (possibly moving it out of the lead, anyway); and 2) need to be extremely careful that we do not assert any more certainty to the report than the Guardian itself does. Lastly, note one change I already made: the most recent cable is from 2007, so we cannot assert that the Guardian claims this issue is ongoing. Looking for the input of others... Qwyrxian (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The wikileaks report is just one of the many recent ones. I agree with your change of language to the article. I do not agree that the cables do not assert widespread systemic abuses. In any case to further the argument, I have added a reference to a section in another article within wikipedia for further reading. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * there have been reports of HR violations in Kashmir both in India and Pakistani administered parts and Al-qaeda roams free under protection of ISI. HR abuses are much more widespread in Pakistan administered Kashmir where Shia minority has been brutally suppressed. Plenty of references are available at Kashmir conflict.  UNHCR considers Indian Kashmir "partly free" and Pakistani Kashmir "Not free"--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Wikireader41. I do not understand the point of your argument. Just because Pak is accused of HR violations does not mean that India is not. By all means add this information to the article as well for the readers to get a complete picture. That is what Wikipedia is for. Why are you using this allegation to counter the facts that I have added to the article. One does not counter the other and both need to be provided to the reader. Qwyrxian's points were well taken. The language was corrected and I appreciate that in the spirit of Wikipedia. However, in your case it seems you want to push one point of view. I invite you to read the wikipedia guidelines for net neutrality.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * and while you are at it, please read and Timeline of the Kashmir conflict why even mainstream politicians claim that the migration (as shameful and regretful it was) was a conspiracy in which Kashmiri (both muslims and pandits) were innocent victims.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * worse human rights abuses are done in Pak administered Kashmir and yet you chose only to link to problems on the Indian side. Why ???  you are the ones pushing POV here and are likely to see yourself blocked.  And why did you not add info about Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits by violent Jihadi Muslims ????  also plenty of references exist of Al-qaeda involvement in Kashmir.  any particular reason you think that should not be included in the lead ????  Kashmiri muslims shamefully failed to protect the Kashmiri Pandits and allowed their genocide. so they are not innocent victims as you claim.  a prominent leader of the largest political party in Kashmir recently accepted responsibility and apologized.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not the one pushing any opinion. It is clear from your statements that you have and want to push one. I never said don't add the references that you are claiming, so why are you asking me why i think they should not be there? Cite a RS and add it. I will welcome it. On the other hand you seem to be clearly advocating one school of thought and misleading the readers. So, please beware and consider this a warning. In addition this discussions page is not for discussion on Kashmir as is clearly mentioned in the LEAD, so please stop filling your responses with statements and opinionsKillbillsbrowser (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * on another note, i came across an article in the source that you had cited that supports the claim of human rights abuse in both sides of Kashmir, so I added that. I would not do it, if I were pushing one opinion.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * you removed cited info for HR abuses in pakistan admin Kashmir. try answering some of the questions I have raised otherwise everyone will know what you are upto.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at it yourself, you had not added the citation at the right place. and so I removed that. Next time when you cited it correctly, I did not touch it at all. As for your claim that your POV is the majority view, that is a dubious statement in itself. I can answer many of your questions, but the preamble of this page clearly mentions that the page is not for discussion on Kashmir, so if you want to create a separate page for that, I can share some information there. As for this page, rest assured, I will not delete any NPOV and RS info, no matter what 'view' it supports and I expect the same from you and others. By the way I undid your most recent edit because exactly that information is present in the post 1948 section of this article. I see no reason to duplicate it. If you think otherwise, please post a comment here and we can then move the whole section there. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article
Articles like this one post a huge question mark on the neutrality of wikipedia. When I first visited this page few years ago, it looked like many paras were written from only Pakistani point of view. Now it is clearly written from Indian point of view AND locked.

Locking this article for editing will not make it neutral. Someone from wikipedia should take time and clean the article of all biased references and statements and THEN lock it. Further changes should only take place through this talk page by wikipedia staff peoples requests with only authentic references. Otherwise whenever this article is open for editing for everyone, it will again become biased. This bias will keep changing sides until it is locked again. WikiHuda (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, first, it's not actually locked from editing, it's only semi-protected (that just means new users can't edit it; and they can make edit suggestions here on this page). Second, you seem to misunderstand the purpose behind protection.  Articles are semi-protected when they are the target of vandalism or POV pushing from anonymous sources, like this one was.  Again, though, any autonfirmed edit (=have edited for 4 days and 10 edits on other articles) can edit this.  There is a stronger thing called "full protection," but that is only ever done on articles that are, right at that moment, the victim of an edit war (where 2 or more people keep reversing each other's actions).  Wikipedia never fully protects an article to keep it permanently in a certain state, because information changes all of the time.  Finally, there are no "wikipedia staff people".  All of the editors on Wikipedia are volunteers, who work collaboratively to improve articles.  By definition, no one person or group of people have special authority to decide what does or doesn't go into articles.
 * Having said all of that, if you point out specifically what you think is a problem in the article, then we can certainly start to fix it. Alternatively, you can easily become autoconfirmed soon, at which point you'll be able to edit it directly.  Qwyrxian (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rundown on Wikipedia :) And thank you for teaching me the use of colon :) From where can I learn the wikipedia syntax?
 * I'll follow up on this subject later sometimes with United Nations resolutions references. WikiHuda (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll leave a template on your personal talk page that has a bunch of links about editing on Wikipedia, from formatting, to sources, to core policies. Also, feel free to ask for help on my talk page at any time.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about the historical Kashmir region. It is not about the current conflict, the dispute, the "free and fair" elections, the "unfree and unfair" elections, the "freedom fighters," the "terrorists," the plight of the Muslim Kashmiris or that of the Kashmir Pandits.  For all these gripes, go to other articles, such as those provided in the dab page, Kashmir (disambiguation).  I have removed the major POV elements that have been added recently and restored the version of the article that was formed by consensus.  See talk page archives.  Some POV elements still remain in the pre-1846 history; those I will attend to later.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No F&f, its about everything Kashmiri. The article is 'Kashmir' not 'Kashmir before 1947.' This article is most definitely the place for an outline of the current conflict. The existance of those other articles doenst mean you remove eveything from this, the 'base' article where readers come to gain an overview. Just because it is likely to contain controversial and contentious information, that doesnt mean you just give up and delete everything. It means you work with others to maintain balance. Dont forget, that in controversial articles it is impossible to maintain NPOV in every single sentence. NPOV is maintained in controversial article by ensuring appropriate balance, rigorously enforcing rules on referencing and strictly enforcing rules on tone, style and syntax. Mdw0 (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the scope up, Mdw0. It was decided on this talk page a while ago with the help of an administrator.  The article use to be the Kashmir region, just like its counterpart in Britannica, which too stops at 1947.  The Kashmir conflict has its own page, Kashmir conflict.  The various dab links, Kashmir (disambiguation), to other Kashmir-related pages are provided right at the top of the page.  It is the first thing a reader sees.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it on this page or am I just blind? If not, any chance of a link to it? I'm fine with a decision that inflammatory details of this conflict are counter-productive, but you should say that, rather than saying the article is only about some 'historic region' because its not. I still think its a cop-out. Surely its possible to have a short paragraph saying there has been various intensifications of the ongoing dispute. Mdw0 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I was wrong. What was agreed to was a detailed history of the pre-1947 period and an overview of the post-1948 period.  The link is in Talk:Kashmir/Archive_4 (see the proposal, which was actually mine).  My memory is no longer what it once was!  The admin was El_C.  I think reinstating the post-1948 developments section is in order.  Frankly, I don't have the time to keep monitoring the scores of people with various ideological monkeys on their backs who come through here.  If you are up to the task, please be my guest.  I believe NPOV and AGF are all fine in principle, but people with twisted outlooks take advantage of it, ignore it themselves, but wave it in your face if you confront them, and are driving the good editors away from Wikipedia.  (That I believe is what happened early last year, when as the New York Times reported, a large proportions of Wikipedia editors left.)  Anyway, I'll write a post-1948 section based on what was there and leave it on your talk page.  You can then go over it and reinstate it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I appreciate the fatigue editors get in defending a controversial article from ideologues (monkeys is not a cool word to use, though, Harbajan) and reading over this one again, the article as it stands is more than servicable, but I'd be interested to see what you have.<small. Mdw0 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you're being ironic ... the monkey was for the ideology, not the editors. And I'm blanking out on the "Harbajan" reference.  Was he or she a notorious Wikipedia editor?  Or is that an Indian name like "Mac?"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, in an infamous cricket series in Australia, Harbhajan Singh was accused of calling an opponent a monkey, but he denied it. Yes, I was trying to be funny. Mdw0 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is funny, now that I understand it. Sadly, my cricket IQ (CQ?) is very low.  Lower than a monkey's.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Very staunch and upright, Fowler! A legitimate discussion on tourism in Kashmir is blanked out by you r highness since you think it is inflammatory, while plenty of time is devoted here to idle chat about Indian cricketeers. And I understand that if anyone tries to stop your POV pushing, he is dismissed as having an 'ideological monkey on his back', and edits/discussions censored and blanked out. Harvardoxford (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've scratched the sarcastic bit. Again, please refrain from using inflammatory language on this page. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Raahulworld2004, 13 November 2010
I dont see any reference to Tourism in kashmir..Kashmir is known throughout its history for its beautiful landscapes and natural beauty..Please mention it in kashmir section without which this article seems incomplete..Thank you

Let me specify what i wabt with this article,1-The article of 'kashmir' needs a section 'tourism' as it is a famous tourist destination.The regions of kashmir valley,ladakh,Jammu are visited by tourists.please see below the reference 2)references -The pilgrimage to Amarnath,  Peace brings Kashmir tourists back,   Hope to see changes in this regard because kashmir is a tourist destination as proved by the above references

Rpatil 15:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Several things--one, you need to more specifically state what you wish added. Second, please take a look at WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles should never contain statements like "it is known for its beautiful landscapes." Such a statement could only be included if it were both highly notable and clearly attributed; for example, if there were some major international review, you could say something like "Travel Magazine X ranked Kashmir as the 5th most beautiful place in the world," assuming that "Travel Magazine X's" opinion was considered important enough. Alternatively, if you have data about how many/how much much is spent on tourism to Kashmir (again, sited to reliable sources), that could be included. Overall, the point is that we cannot make original statements; all information must be verified by reliable sources. If you do have something more specific that you would like to include, please post another edit semi-protected request. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this page is controlled by Indian POV pushers. An entire discussion in this section with regard to whether the existence of tourism in Indian Occupied Kashmir can be attributed to any reliable sources has been erased by certain editors.

Some of these POV pushers retaliate by dragging in irrelevant political issues "How dare you say that there is no tourism in Indian Kashmir?? Pakistan is sponsoring terrorism, and what about all the poor Hindoo Hindu refugees??" and others with more authority simply censor it all by wiping it off the face of this discussion!Harvardoxford (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point out sources that back these claims that "tourism is not allowed in Kashmir since..." or that "Tourism is affected by Indian Army" please. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  09:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see the text "Kashmirs primary source of income was tourism. the tourism industry has been devastated by the civil war. A war is being fought in Kashmir between an alliance of Islamic Militants and Kasmiri Independence groups against 400,000 Indian troops who have conducted a brutal occupation that has resulted in the death of over 80,000 Kashmiris." on the webpage http://www.viiphoto.com/detailStory.php?news_id=276 .... The article and photo essay clearly shows how, after losing the war in Bangladesh, and losing that province, India struggles to keep its hold over the province of Kashmir.

I think the discussion on tourism in Indian Kashmir ends here, your censor happy editor friends not withstanding. Good night.Harvardoxford (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the given link, with a picture of a beggar, does not provide proof of your claims and unrelated assertions. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  10:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikipedia is not here to convince you of anything. I'm sure you'll give your stoic reaction even if i showed you UN reports. Go cry over how you lost the war in 1971 somewhere else. Please leave Wikipedia alone. Harvardoxford (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to do something that would rile up against Indians in the name of a war with Pakistan when clearly you are not a Pakistani? This behavior is unusual. Where are those U.N. reports about tourism in Kashmir? How is it related to 1971 war, Mr. PhD?  ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  12:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well here are some links on tourism in Kashmir: [| from its chief minister]; [| delegations visits]; [| a book on impact of terrorism on tourism in J&K]; some sites on current information [hotels with contact info]; [tours]; [|more tourism]. The point is that tourism picked up slowly after 1996, it was ongoing till mid 1989s when when it collapsed due to militancy. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  18:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Harvardoxford: Please be warned that "Hindoo" is archaic spelling and considered offensive by many Indians. It has a history of being used as an ethnic or racial slur against them, as the link demonstrates. Accordingly, I have scratched all occurrences of that spelling above and and replaced them with the more common spelling "Hindu."  I'll assume good faith on your part and chalk its use above to ignorance, but any repetition of the spelling "Hindoo," will now be a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Ethnic or racial slurs are not taken kindly on Wikipedia.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats box in Demographics section
After checking the cited BBC source, I have found that BBC states 99% muslim for Azad Kashmir, not 100% as currently listed. Then, doing the math, the total line should read "77% muslim, 20% hindu, 1% buddhist, 2% other". Currently it only adds up to 88% and all percentages but the ones for muslim are too low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.100.193 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How did you do the math, could you put down the numbers here please? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  08:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the numbers in the demographics setion don't add up:
 * "The population of Indian-administered union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh combined is 12,541,302 and Pakistani-administered territory of Azad Kashmir is 2,580,000 and Gilgit-Baltistan is 870,347." but then in the demographics box there's 4+3+0.25=7.25 million iso the 12.541 million ...
 * So what would be the estimate of all the populations affected in the 4 regions? Some 18.5 million ? :
 * 1. the Indian side : 12.5 million people affected
 * 2. the Pakistani side: 6 million people affected
 * 3. Chinese side: 10.000 people affected, Aksai Chin region
 * 4. Afghanistan side: 10.600 million people affected, Wakhan region SvenAERTS (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Justification for recent revert
Here a short explanation why I reverted the last edits, as requested by user:Shrigley:

I hope this helps.--Pseudois (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Modification of the definition: Please refer to the talk page archive.
 * Removal of Nanga Parbat picture. Why remove this picture? We also have a picture from Skardu, which doesn't seem to disturb.
 * Removal of Uyghur naming, based on the justification: "Aksai Chin has no permanent inhabitants". First Aksai Chin does have nowadays a couple of permanent settlement along road G219. Secondly there are some Uyghur settlement in other areas of the region described in this article, in particular in Pakistan Gilgit-Baltistan and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (Tajik should might actually also be added).
 * Removal of Karakash river picture. Same as above.
 * Addition: "Indian definitions of Kashmir". Unsourced and not exclusively and "Indian" defintion.

Diwan Misr Chand-- Great Hindu General
The deletion of this conqueror from this page is like a joke, he sold all the afghan and kashmiri women in hira mandi as sex workers its a known fact, anyone can search about this great HINDU GENERAL--DIWAN MISR CHAND 1819 KASHMIR ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this means most afgans and kashmirs in the region is part hindoo blood then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.6.58 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY ANTI-HINDU
Well using the influence, one of the users got me banned but that TOO WILL NOT CHANGE THE HISTORY and the HINDU GENERAL DIWAN MISR CHAND(WHOM BRITISH FEARED SO MUCH THAT THEY THOUGHT ITS BETTER TO DELAY INVASION ON PANJAB RATHER THAN FACE DEFEAT), will be the one who CONQUERED KASHMIR and ended irreligious 400-500 year muslim rule and for PAST 200 YEARS ONLY HINDUS HAVE RULED KASHMIR. 122.161.82.165 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

out of date source
The addition by of material cited to a 2011 facsimile reprint of an 1895 book:, does not meet the standards described in WP:RS. I am therefore taking the liberty of undoing his edit. If Abdevilliers007 could explain here what he is attempting to do, it might make his edit look less like vandalism and more like misguided history writing. I will look forward to reading a cogent explanation from him. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=g#hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&sclient=psy-ab&q=misr+chand+kashmir+1819&oq=misr+chand+kashmir+1819&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...233.5123.2.5328.33.29.4.0.0.0.259.5602.0j14j13.28.0...0.0.mB3ZC7CQg3U&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e3ab33870dc3fda4&biw=1280&bih=629

you want sources hahahaha cant you "SEARCH MISR CHAND KASHMIR 1819 IN GOOGLE BOOKS"

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=zp0FbTniNaYC&pg=PA147&dq=misr+chand+kashmir+1819&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UdjZT_T6GIjOrQfDx5jdBw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=misr%20chand%20kashmir%201819&f=false

you want more---http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=g#q=misr+chand+kashmir+1819&hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&psj=1&ei=79fZT6LhLIeurAeC0MnqBw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e3ab33870dc3fda4&biw=1280&bih=629

http://www.google.co.in/search?rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=g#q=misr+chand+kashmir+1819&hl=en&rlz=1C1RNHN_enIN478IN478&tbm=bks&psj=1&ei=a9jZT-2WNIbirAfBq_zcBw&start=30&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=e3ab33870dc3fda4&biw=1280&bih=629

Look mate my knowledge in far superior to your knowledge in this regard, you have some typical anti-hindu feeling but even that will not change the HISTORY, OUR LEGENDARY DIWAN MISR CHAND will remain the hero who ended 500 year irreligious muslim rule and for past "200 YEARS" hindus have ruled it without any interruption. thnx ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid none of these are reliable sources; they are either out of date or they are published by unrecognized publishers. Please produce an academic textbook or monograph published by an internationally recognized publisher in support of your edit.  The article has used high-quality sources until now.  I will not edit war with you, but I am asking you to revert you edit until you find a contemporary scholarly source that supports it.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well as usual, using your inlfuence you blocked me again, but i think you are not suitable to edit this page, because in the above lines you have mentioned that "LADAKH" was captured by Maharaja Ranbir Singh hahahaha, it was captured by Zorawar Singh in 1834(much before 1846), this shows that you have no knowledge, i dont know in which university you held the post of Prof. In Indian History you should first learn basic facts, you are calling "HARI RAM GUPTA" "UNRRELIABLE SOURCE" for "PUNJAB AND SIKH HISTORY" that is going to make me die hahahahaha. ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine. I suggest you go and do enjoy that in your own private time and space then, without annoying and buggering us any longer WITH YOUR SO-CALLED HALF-BREAD TRUTHS!  Qwrk (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Redundant map up top
User Opus88888 has inserted a simple map of the Kashmir region at the top of the article on the grounds that it clearly shows the boundaries of the Kashmir Valley (or the Vale of Kashmir). However, the political map that has been in place for many years already clearly shows the Vale of Kashmir. Since it is also a physical map, it shows that even more informatively. The borders of the vale of Kashmir, by the way, are not as clearly marked, as Opus88888's map makes them out. Besides, in that map the Vale is called Kashmir, which is confusing, since in the article "Kashmir" refers to the entire region. I do understand the user:Opus88888 has done a lot of work in creating the map, but it simply doesn't provide any new information, and is, consequently, redundant. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS As for his conjecture in his edit summary that I am Indian, it remains just that, a conjecture.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS And yes, Ladakh does lie in the Kashmir region. It was annexed to Kashmir by Zorawar Singh the general of the Kashmir and Jammu princely state's first ruler, Gulab Singh (see, here, for example).  Consequently, Aksai Chin, being a part of Ladakh, lies in the Kashmir region as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested if you are kashmiri, paki, indian or new yorker, the people that use wikipedia or search through the net just want to know where "Indian" Kashmir is located, without Jammu and Ladakh zones fusioned.

--Opus88888 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are not interested, then why are you making irrelevant conjectures in your edit summaries? I'm sorry, your map doesn't explain the complexity of the Kashmir situation better than the map in place. There are other issues, the Kashmir region is disputed.  The maps have to be drawn very carefully.  Indian Kashmir, is really Indian-administered Kashmir.  You can't display Indian-administered Kashmir in the colors of the Indian map.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you are going to edit war over it. It's no use edit warring.  You made a bold edit, I reverted it, now, we need to discuss it on the talk page, per WP:BRD.  We can't have people inserting all kinds of maps just because they made the map.  I understand that it is good to see one's work at the top of the article, but encyclopedic content and its integrity is more important.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia map in Districts of Jammu and Kashmir, today, Kashmir districts from Indian-administered side include:


 * Anantnag District
 * Kulgam District
 * Pulwama District
 * Shopian District
 * Budgam District
 * Srinagar District
 * Ganderbal District
 * Bandipora District
 * Baramulla District
 * Kupwara District

Selecting the districts of the Ladakh region and the Jammu region, a map showing Indian-controlled Kashmir can be infered.

Since Ladakh districts are not included in the Kashmir districtal area, Chinese disputed territories near the Jammu and Kashmir state (Indian-controlled Kashmir + Jammu + Ladakh) could not be included in the Kashmir region.

--Opus88888 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I'm afraid your answer is unintelligible. I am asking you again: what information is there in your map that is not already there in the US Government map (that has been in place in the article for over four years)? In addition, there are many elementary mistakes or major omissions in your map. For example, the Gilgit Baltistan area is shown under "Pakistan." It is Pakistani-administered to be sure, but still disputed. Jammu and Kashmir, which is Indian-administered, but also disputed is rendered in the same color as India. This too is a major error. The caption mentions only Jammu and Kashmir. The page is not about Jammu and Kashmir, but rather about the much larger Kashmir region. You are welcome to add that map to the Jammu and Kashmir page if you'd like. The US Government map, on the other hand, has a box which explains all the regions very clearly. It clearly shows the line of control. It clearly shows other important cartographic information. It is a map drawn by professionals. Your map, on the other hand, is both graphically simple and simplistic. Please note, it is not enough to respond here. You still need to self-revert and then proceed according to WP:BRD. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Propaganda by some editors
Well i knew that most editors have already researched about my dear "DIWAN MISR CHAND" the great hindu general who defeated DURRANI EMPIRE at MULTAN(1818), KASHMIR(1819) and at Naushera(between attock and peshawar in 1823) then why you think that not allowing his name on this page will change the history. Their is a saying in HINDU literature that HINDU will win against any enemy and he tries untill he didnt defeat his enemy many examples are their, first greeks, then persians then whole race of MUSLIMS and i am sure that our next target is "COMMUNIST CHINA".ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The problems most editors have with your input is not because they are using Wikipedia as a platform to vent their propaganda. It simply is that using phrases like "Great Hindu General" constitutes "Point Of View" which is to be avoided here, hence the block you ran into recently. Qwrk (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK i agree that i go an extra mile, but neither my facts and nor my contents are "WITHOUT ANY BASIS" i think even you can search the name of DIWAN MISR CHAND, he was a Punjabi Hindu and Commander In Chief of Maharaja Ranjit Singh(from 1815-1824), the man who literally destroyed "AFGHANS", who created tremors in the Central Asian Muslim countries ,they were lucky though as they were under RUSSIAN EMPIRE at that time otherwise we would have annexed uzbekistan,tajikistan as well.ABDEVILLIERS0007 (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't continually add block capitals in your posts. Block capitals, such as "WITHOUT ANY BASIS," are in writing what shouting or screaming is in speech.  We are all civilized people here.  There is no need to scream.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Issue of Parallelism between pages - As it seems the final decision on the Kashmir article was to remove Diwan Misr Chand's name it should be noted that the article on Misr Diwan Chand specifically says that "he rose from petty clerk to chief of artillery and commander-in-chief of the armies that conquered Multan and Kashmir". With this in mind it seems fair to change either the Kashmir article or the Misr Diwan Chand article so that they will agree. Let me know what you think, thanks! --Jrusnak (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

d kargil valley is a part of baltistan
d people of kargil speak balti n they r called baltis of baltistan same as for e.g. pakis of pakistan. balti people r mostly shia muslims. thanks to d LOC, skardu d capital of baltistan is not connected to kargil n thousand of families got divided. d above r reasons cuz of which we had d 1999 war bett india n pak. pakis aren't dumb, they do jihad cuz kashmiris n baltis support pakistan against india. anti india mobs r common in kashmir n kargil valleys but luckily for india kashmiri n balti people have a sunni vs shia thing bett them. i can go on n on about d problem called JnK but d basic point is that we should let people be who they r. plz don't call a dogri or balti or ladakhi etc a kashmiri.

if u get confused bett ladakhi n balti its understandable cuz they look similar but if u confuse urself with baltis or dogris then JnK is a problem forever! 'prior to d 19th century kashmir meant just d kashmir valley' thats d truth cuz gilgit, baltisan, ladakh r similar n d same applies to jammu, himachal n uttar kashi. i do support d people of kashmir but i think they need to downsize their ego n landarea to a talkable level. KASHMIR VALLEY, yup that beautiful place. plz remember that u lived in kashmir even before hinduism, buddism n islam came there. so leave ur religion aside n think as a kashmiri. kashmiris look more aryan then regular indo-aryans i.e. north indians. kashmir should be given its space n security. a union territory maybe. n if u had not joined violent jihad u would have been free by now. not a free country but atleast something unique n respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawa1989 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is very good but this is not the place for activism, This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. Talk pages are for discussions about the article's encyclopedic content, not your personal analysis. Please make a clear bold point about the encyclopedic content of the article and what you think is wrong with it. -- Farah Desai Talk 19:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Chronic indebtedness to landords
"In the British census of India of 1941, Kashmir registered a Muslim majority population of 77%, a Hindu population of 20% and a sparse population of Buddhists and Sikhs comprising the remaining 3%.[27] That same year, Prem Nath Bazaz, a Kashmiri Pandit journalist wrote: “The poverty of the Muslim masses is appalling. ... Most are landless laborers, working as serfs for absentee [Hindu] landlords ... Almost the whole brunt of official corruption is borne by the Muslim masses.”[28] For almost a century until the census, a small Hindu elite had ruled over a vast and impoverished Muslim peasantry.[27][29] Driven into docility by chronic indebtedness to landords and moneylenders, having no education besides, nor awareness of rights,[27] the Muslim peasants had no political representation until the 1930s"

If the above statistics is correct, how can the majority be ruled by the minority of people? And didn't the mughals invade India, therefore the above para seems to be misrepresented. Can the writers of the article verify these and update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.168.6 (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
For most of the 7+ years that the etymology section has been present, it contained variations on the two main theories of the etymology – let's call them "Kashyapa+Mir" and "Ka+Shimir", along with significant descriptions of both.

Recently, an editor changed it to a single sentence, saying: "The word Kashmir is derived from Sanskrit कश्मीर (káśmīra)" and citing this cryptic-to-anyone-but-a-linguist source.

I reverted, was re-reverted (by another editor) with the comment that my version was unsourced. Normally, I would come here with it at that point, but since I had a source, I reverted and cited (here). I've been reverted again with the comment that my derivation is "...folk etymology not found in Skt dictionaries or sources". The source I cited, as I understand it, is from a translation of Nilamata Purana, a history of Kashmir from the 6th–8th century CE.

I contend that the longer descriptions and the source I cited present a more complete picture of the possible derivations than the one-liner and cryptic source that are there now. I'd suggest reverting to those longer descriptions and leaving both cites in, but I'll leave it up to editors more familiar with the subject. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 21:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You can verify káśmīra as a Sanskrit word in these dictionaries here and here. Furthermore, this source here (top of p. 387) corroborates that nonsense such as "Kashyapa+Mir" is false, outdated etymology. Foreverknowledge (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The statement that "There is neither linguistic nor any other evidence to support this conjecture" is false. It appears in Nilamata Purana, one of the oldest texts available. Why would this not be mentioned? Your source also acks that it has found its way into multiple reliable sources. As I said, I have no problem in presenting both alternatives. I believe it's clear that "Kashyapa+Mir" is far too widespread to be simply ignored. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2013
I would like to add my new website www.kashmirimages.net My website is focused on beauty of kashmir with lots of nice images of this area. thank you

Kelvin luz (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Wikipedia is not for advertsing or promoting your website.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Rule section is empty
Why is this section of the article empty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.19.177 (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

China
Kashmir is divided into pakistan. India & china. Why the dispute about china is not mentioned? I think omitting geography makes this article incomplete. Kindly include the stand taken by these countries. India: claims for entire Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan: Claims only on India occupied Kashmir. It stands silent on China Occupied Kashmir. It has given some north west part of kashmir to china. China: It occupies Part of Kashmir called as 'Aksai Chin'. China doesn't claim Jammu & Kashmir. It doesn't take part in discussion/dispute between India & Pakistan. China got it on benefit for 1962 Indo-china war. Kashmiri people are silent on china occupied Kashmir. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_conflict Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits...
Would Somebody please explain to me that why some editors are vandalizing this topic with poorly sourced Unconstructive edits...for example...It is calimed by some editors without reference that Pashtun Tribals RAPED Kashmirir women....Now when in God's name did the Pashtuns came in Kashmir....It was the Local tribes of Kashmir who fought in 1947 not people from NWFP....And Weren't Kasmiri's the one who called the Pakistani Army for help....Then why the hell would Pakistani Army and tribals rape Kashmiri women....They were the one's DEFENDING them....I have given a proper reference but somebody keeps removing it....This issue is getting out of hand....We need to come to a common understanding to create Neutral topic...Adil your (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The responsibility lies with you to provide reliable sources for major edits to this page and any other page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to substantiate your edits by reliable refs instead of your "logic". Doorvery far (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Adil your you are the one vandalizing this article. it is a well established fact that Pashtuns invaded Kashmir in 1947 and ILLEGALY occupied kashmir.  you might want to start reading some reputable journals like TIME,  Death in the Vale  maybe they dont teach these things in a Madrasah--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is rife with obvious Indian propaganda, and completely overlooks the horrendous human rights violations, murder, rape, disappearances, and other attacks against the majority Muslim population. An entire portion of this is dedicated to the Kashmiri pundit Hindu minority, whereas one might never learn that India has been cited numerous times for its abuses against the Muslim civilians, and in fact Indian-occupied Kashmir was been described, at one time, as the largest concentration camp in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.201.188 (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC) If truth doesn't suit you, it becomes propaganda.Great! Get over it, champ. (20:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Indented lineYou must be another typical ignorant Hindu. If you do have a brain and you agree with many others that this entire article needs a major overhaul. There is way to much Hindu propaganda and bias facts throughout the article. To point out the most basic mistake in this entire article is the fact referring the Indian territory claimed by India as "Jammu and Kashmir" When in reality its actually called and known internationally as "Indian occupied Kashmir" Kashmir is not part of India according to the Kashmiri people and the UN. Get over with it realy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sownage (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2014
115.84.139.34 (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No actual request? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

jimmy
I think Led Zeppelin has something to do with Kashmir maybe not.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.199.118 (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No. Led zeppelin back in 1975 released his sixth album and named it "kashmir". That is all the relationship the land of kashmir has with led zeppelin. Mhveinvp (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Section Demographics
Jammu->Jammu Division --222.35.187.9 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 14:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2014
Waste of time, remove the section

120.61.12.93 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2014 (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. Cannolis (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia_org-wiki-Kashmir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir

Kindly named this topic as Indian Version of kashmir, and please do not distort the facts; Kashmir and Gilgit Balistan are two separate states....

And Gilgiti speaks SHINA while Kashmir's completely spoke a different Language and they have vast diversion in their Culture....

I dont know what your source is but I am living with Gilgities and Kashmir's too...

Gilgitis got Chinese tradition, Language Style, Accent, Heights, face structure and all other specification and they do not have proper road linkages with JAMMU and Kashmir...

While Kashmirs are completely look likes Punjabi's, their life style, face structure, tradition, eating habits, heights, relations, function and any thing you named.....

Then how the hell on the earth you attach Gilgit with Kashmir.... I believe some one quote you the some Ashoka's 4000 years old bullshit... is that the case?

And logically whos you gonna believe, the one who never met with any Gilgiti (I mean the Indian people, because they do not have any ground links with Gilgities) OR the one who lived all his life with them?

Here is my facebook profile link; go visit and check

www.facebook.com/COMSATS

And they all are Gilgitis, ask them that they have any kind of relation with Kashmiris? OR Any historical linkages with State of kashmir?

https://www.facebook.com/gufranciit https://www.facebook.com/ehsan.ullah.739326 https://www.facebook.com/kousar.bano.3 https://www.facebook.com/aaoosanam.hunzachalain

Even in your own posted MAP of British India 1909 do not include this as a part of Kashmir? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Brit_IndianEmpireReligions3.jpg

You can easily mark them along with Chines Territory according to British India 1909 map, its just the matter of fact as I already told you that they are traditionally a part of Chines civilization but due to their links with Muslims they have accept Muslim culture along the border.... But they have nothing to do with Kashmir or state of Kashmir....

if still you do not consider to pull out this shit then please mark this story as "Wiki Indian Drama / Movie facts".

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.40.1 (talk) 9:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

issues with present form
Major clean up of the article is needed. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Khanyusufkhalil, could you please be a bit more specific? What is wrong and what should be done about it? Make a list of problems if necessary. Or even better, be bold and make some edits yourself. HyperGaruda (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I am currently reviewing the procedures on editing. The article is not letting new users edit. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Due to persistent vandalism from several banned users and anonymous editors the article is semi-protected, so that only established users can edit it. Richard Harvey (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015
The introduction part does not mention treaty of accession or tribal uprising preceding it, thus giving a relatively one-sided view at the most impression-forming area

Suryodaya.prince (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (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. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051228130128/http://www.indologie.uni-halle.de:80/forschung/Moksopaya/introduction.htm to http://www.indologie.uni-halle.de/forschung/Moksopaya/introduction.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606134331/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C10%5C22%5Cstory_22-10-2008_pg7_41 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\10\22\story_22-10-2008_pg7_41

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The Pakistani name for Kashmir
Shouldn't the Pakistani name for Kashmir be given in the lede? I realize this is an article fraught with contention, but it seems reasonable to include it, even if the Indian editors may not want to include it.__209.179.8.124 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And, what is the Pakistani name for Kashmir?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The national language of Pakistan is Urdu. The Urdu name for Kashmir is given in the first sentence of the article. Maproom (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160106060542/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/AccessionDoc.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/AccessionDoc.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080514065929/http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/ to http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Extent of "Kashmir"
The text that said that the extent of "Kashmir" varied through time is correct. The rulers of the Kashmir valley dominated the surrounding areas and all the area under their control was called "Kashmir." I don't have sources ready at present. But this is an important point because it is part of the justification of using the term for the wider region at present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see those sources. The only reason why Kashmir is used for the wider geographical region today is that the Dogra rulers of the princely state, of Kashmir and Jammu, who had been rulers of Jammu until they, in succession, invaded Ladakh and Baltistan in the 1830s and early 40s, purchased the valley cheaply from the British as reward for betraying the Sikhs in 1846, and established treaties of vassalage with the Hunza and Nagar to the north.  All contemporary internationally vetted RS, such as Chitralekha Zutshi's Language of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir, Columbia University Press, 2003; and Mridu Rai, Hindu Ruler, Muslim Subjects:  Islam Rights and the History of Kashmir, Princeton University Press, 2004, use the terms, Kashmir, Kashmir Valley, and the Valley synonymously for the pre-1846 era.  To be sure, there were political entities such as the Mughal Soubah of Kashmir, whose capital alternated between Kabul and Kandahar, but the geographical term was always reserved for the valley.  Extending a political term to a geographical would be akin to describing the geographical term Bengal to once have included Uttar Pradesh or United Provinces, because latter was technically a part of the Bengal Presidency in the 19th century.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "pre-1846 era." During the times when Kashmir lost its hold over the surrounding regions (and even itself), sure "Kashmir" meant just the valley. This is the "Kashmir proper." But when Kashmir was a major power, it lent its name to the surrounding regions. See for example, Wink, pp. 233-234 and also other occurrences of Kashmir in the book. The Chachnama states that the border of Kashmir was at a place called panj mahiyat, whose precise location is not known but historians interpret it to be somewhere in northwestern Punjab. At that time, apparently, there was no "Punjab", only "Sindh" and "Kashmir." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, then why don't we say that in the lead:


 * "According to the definitive interpretation of Rajatrangini---the hallmark of Kashmiri historiography---by Professor Andre Wink of the University of Wisconsin, during the early Indian medieval age, there was no Punjab, no land watered by five rivers, no remnants of the Sapta Sindhu so beloved of the Vedas.  There was only Sind and Kashmir.  The river Indus, after it coursed at great speed around the western anchor of the Himalayas, the Nanga Parbat, flowed directly into Sind.  This could only have been possible if the ingenious Hindu Kashmiris had knowledge of advanced aqueduct technology and so we may assume that the Roman arch was reinvented in Kashmir."


 * In other words, I'm wise to Hindu nationalist irredentism. That a posited kingdom based in the Kashmir valley from time to time expanded in frontiers or became part of a larger empire, does not change the geographical denotation of Kashmir, which has always been the valley.  After the mid 19th century, the geographical denotation itself changed.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, you know the history of this article better than I do. If "Kashmir" means the same as Kashmir Valley, why do we need two separate articles for them? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because, after 1846, the term Kashmir began to be used both informally and officially for the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu (the British name). This article was originally titled Kashmir region, and it stopped (historically) in 1947.  The Kashmir and Jammu (princely state), created later,  and still later changed to J&K (princely state) (apparently the ruling Dogra's name for their state), was a content fork, almost a copy at first, whose creation I opposed, but it slipped through anyway.  The Kashmir valley is another content fork, which, if I remember correctly, was created mainly to make the reference to the Kashmir valley in this article a blue link.  This is Wikipedia my friend (and I mean the last bit).  (Sorry for my blunt tone in my posts above, but this article (for all kinds of reasons) attracts drive-bys, which you most assuredly are not; in fact, I'm glad that you're watching over this article, as my visits are increasingly sporadic.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me the history of the articles. But, my point is that the traditional extent of "Kashmir" is not much different from that of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It has always been larger than the Kashmir valley. The mountains provide natural boundaries and these don't change over time. The disputed sentence was added here. I think the editor is right that all the historical maps show the extent of Kashmir to be the same. (There is nothing to indicate that the editor is a Hindu nationalist. Judging from the edit history, he/she is probably a Shin.) In the one case when the boundaries have been precisely recorded, viz., Chachnama, we do have confirmation. I expect that the fertile Kashmir valley would have provided the revenue and the surrounding mountain regions would have provided the fighting forces. This natural ecology of the place was broken by the Durranis. But, historically speaking, this is an aberration rather than the norm. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Refugees - unreliable source
The content you have added (reproduced above) is sourced to a self-published source. The author is the Director of the Institute of Policy Studies (Pakistan) and the editor of the journal (apparently an in-house journal of the Institute). I am replacing it by reliably sourced content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now done a little bit of calculation since all kinds of numbers are being thrown around. According to Snedden's data, there were 1.2m Muslims in the Jammu province in the 1941 census. There was pretty much no migration from the Kashmir province. So, it is clearly impossible for 1.5m Muslims to have migrated to AJK from the Indian-held Kashmir!
 * If I subtract Mirpur and half of Poonch populations, then the rest of the Jammu province had only about 700,000 Muslims (about 50% of the population). India's Jammu province is still 33.5% Muslim. So, the maximum number that could have migrated is 17% of the-then population, which is about 250,000. Even the 500,000 number that was accepted by Christopher Snedden is an overestimate.
 * While we are at it, let me also note that the 17% Hindus of Mirpur and 9% Hindus of Poonch (about 100,000 in total) have vanished. Nobody talks about them. So much for reliable sources! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead section
Can you explain how this content is irrelevant? -- S M S Talk 09:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Reason For Nominating for Neutrality
This article has been nominated for neutrality because it contains insufficient information on the Muslim Rule of Kashmir, while providing extensive information on the Hindu/Buddhist and Sikh rule. Insufficient information because it talks about the Muslim Rule until 1342, then skips to the Sikh rule in 1842. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:8102:40DF:42F:76BD:87BB:F26D (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Lack of this information about history does not qualify as an NPOV issue. You are welcome to add this information. -- S M S Talk 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issue in the Dogra Rule section
I am putting a POV tag on the Dogra Rule section because it is overweight on Muslim grievances. This article is on the entire Kashmir region and not on just Kashmiri Muslims. There is no doubt that the grievances were real, but they have to be described in a historically correct way. Are they different from the ryotwari system elsewhere in the subcontinent? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sentence Scholar Ayesha Jalal states that the Maharajahs nurtured ties with Kashmiri Pandits and their Dogra kinsfolk in Jammu to trample on the rights of their subjects is also a misrepresentation of the source. It implies that they nurtured ties for the purpose of trampling on the rights. There is no such causation in the source. They seem to be separate phenomena. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Huge revert
I notice that did a huge revert this morning, apparently to his own version from 16 July, with the edit summary removing POV-ridden Hindu Dogra Rule and restoring last stable version. Please take it to the talk page and gain consensus. Lost in the process were a large number of improvements over these months such as the updated demographic statistics, archived sources, and also the Kashmiri Muslim grievances that I complained about in the section above.

Coming to the "POV-ridden Hindu Dogra rule", most of this content is mine and I am no Hindu apologist or Dogra apologist. The content is sourced to K. M. Panikkar's 1930 book, which continues to be cited in scholarly works till today, cross-checked with Bawa Satinder Singh's journal article. If Fowler finds "POV" in this content, I would like to hear what it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now also cross-checked it also against Mridu Rai and added it as a source.
 * It also occurs to me that F&f argued with me vehemently in May that "Kashmir" means the entire Jammu and Kashmir. It is ironic, therefore, that he should object to the content about Dogras, who are an integral part of "Kashmir" in his sense. As a matter of fact, the entire article is terribly overweight on the Kashmir valley with very little said about Jammu, Ladakh and Gilgit, a problem that needs to be corrected in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)