Talk:Kashmir conflict/Archive 1

Indianized Wikipedia
The whole wikipedia -every article, ( if india is invloved ) is india-leaning. wikipedia nowadays is very much an "Indianopedia" rather than any neutral encyclopedia. Everwhere all are indian versions of truth. Could any administrator begin a 'reform' to make the REALLY NEUTRAL versions to get rid of these indians POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.231.123 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

References Cited
It'd be good to have a refrence citing the obervation that King Hari Singh played india off against pakistan.

Ranjitointernational 09:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To be honest there is an unacceptable lack of references extending throughout the entire article; I would urge people interested in this article (and it seems like there are many) to try and find some proof for some of the claims made and if unable to, to edit areas of the article to compensate for the lack of references.

AetherSage (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) AetherSage

Nonsensical passage
Does anyone care to clean up this passage? It makes no sense to me. Acsenray 14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For India Kashmir has been more then a discomfiture then a feat. In 1947 30% of Kashmir was omitted to Pakistan and in 1962 30% of it was gone to China. On both those occasion’s Indian self-assurance was marred. India has not been able to convalesce those losses to date.

4000 or 3000 Pakistani soldiers killed

 * I don't think Nawaz Sharif or Pakistan People's Party are reliable sources because they belong to the opposition side who are willing to say anything to malign the current government in Parliment. We need solid neutral proof on the number of soldiers killed. Also, the Indian Army is always ready to name local insurgents as Pakistanis when it comes to counting the enemy dead in order to boost their own morale. Advil 01:38, 27 July 2006


 * Can you find any "independent observers" saying 4000 Pak soldiers have died, Idleguy? Advil 02:40, 27 July 2006


 * Please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources (found in the main article Kargil War). If you disagree with the stats provided then this isn't the place to vent your feelings since blanking in Wikipedia isn't welcome. Independent observers themselves tend to give high importance to the figures provided by people who were/are in power since a person somewhere in the west would have no clue compared to the one who was closer to the conflict. If anything Pakistan hasn't officially conducted a commission nor has it spelt out the casualties in Kargil; the only mention seems to be a boast by Musharaf that the Pakistan Army casualties were lower, however he doesn't give the exact numbers. Infact one of the "mujahideen" groups themselves had claimed on their website (during the conflict) that thousands had "martyred" in the icy peaks. That's only the jihadis mind you, not the NLI, SSG or Pak Army. I think it's time to accept history for what it was, instead of being in denial of the facts in this day and age. --Idleguy 07:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please stop disguising assumptions as facts by showing unreliable sources such as statements from Mr. Sharif or the PPP. Mr. Sharif now states that he was not given any briefing about the Kargil war on July 14, 2006 which is hard to believe. Lt-Gen Khawaja Ziauddin briefed, as he so claims, it is strange that the ISI gave no information about the skirmish to him. If the claim of Mr Sharif is true, then the question arises why instead of sacking Lt-Gen Ziauddin for this intelligence failure, Mr Sharif proceeded to appoint him as army chief when he decided to replace Gen Musharraf. It’s about time you people accept the fact that Sharif is an unreliable source when it comes to the 1999 skirmish. Advil 03:28, 27 July 2006


 * Just because Mr Sharif gives a figure that seems to bother a few Pakistanis, he is termed as unreliable. Even when the PPP attests to that and quotes a lower figure, they too are branded as unacceptable. How convenient! Elected representatives' statements are rubbished, yet, a dictator's words are taken at face value - not that Gen Musharaf has even given a casualty figure - thus making a mockery of sources.


 * You must remember one thing, Wikipedia is about verifiability, see Verifiability which states boldly "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you feel that Sharif is lying, that is different but his statement is a verifiable one and that's all that matters. Also I'm making the last revert and any more reverts by you will come under WP:3RR given that your edits of blanking selective sections seem to constitute a type of vandalism --Idleguy 09:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how Indians are willing to accept these numbers as concrete facts to boost their low morale. Mr. Sharif's political career depends on defying and creating animosity against the current government. Advil 11:00, 27 July 2006


 * Idleguy, please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources. Advil 10:42, 27 July 2006


 * OK. I have removed the whole casualty thing since it now requires a full paragraph. Instead the main article on the war has the casualty figures explained in detail. The focus of this article is the history and since none of the other wars discuss the casualty figures anyway I've removed this one too since it is needlessly getting larger just for one aspect. Hope you will understand. Tx Idleguy 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. Idleguy, please refrain from deleting lines from the article which have sources. Advil 10:52, 27 July 2006


 * These sources are already there with the casualty figures in the Kargil War article. No one is deleting that, infact I was the one who put it there in the first place. I'm saying it'll keep on getting longer and longer just to have a redundant casualty section in an article about the history of the Kashmir conflict. Take a look at the other wars covered here and you'll find they don't talk about the casualties. Including casualties involves a controversy - and we have enough of that here already in this article, so please try to understand and don't lose the focus of the article. Infact the link you provided here will be useful in the Kargil War about the equipment used by Pakistan. --Idleguy 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan

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

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

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

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

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

It's time to clean up all articles with the assertion that Pak claims Kashmir. Evidently it does not and never has all these decades. So much for every expert's well-researched understanding on matters Kashmir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information than a foreign office spokesperson.  Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look at http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/6.htm and http://hrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/4.htm before claiming Pakistan does not control AK - obviously it cannot openly claim a disputed territory like Kashmir to be an integral part of Pakistan, then it would not be able to point fingers at India for doing so - but it treats it as such. --- Zebee 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of substance in the Pak POV
1. Kindly put up references and citations about Pak's official viewpoint on Kashmir.

2. Pak Forein Office has officially claimed that it has never said that Kashmir belongs to Pak.

3. References in books and newsreports about the happenings in Sep-mid Oct 1947 clearly suggest that Pak tribals were encouraged to attack Kashmir and that arms were distributed for the expedition in the Pathan tribal areas.. The Pathan tribals used as a proxy by the Pak plitical establishment, attacking and invading Kashmir is a fact. The Indian troops landing in choppers into Srinagar only on Oct 27,1947 is also a fact. Just because the Pak troops themselves were involved late by Pak, doesn't mean that Pak didn't officially invade.This is the pivot of the Pak POV.

4. There's no place for rumors to be put up as fact or even a POV when it is not adequately backed up. Anybody can spin a yarn with the 1947 setting and claim it to be a theory. That's exactly what the Pak POV suggests.

5. Pak incidentally has never disputed the Accession Document for Kashmir in the UN. I would ask for the Pak official position on Kashmir at the UN to be made available here as citation and reference. Incidentally the Indian official position at the UN vide Krishna Menon's marathon speech is available.

6. If references/citations are not availabe, just delete the trash and stick to proven facts.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.16.96 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Two points:
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of viewpoints but a NPOV collection of facts from reliable sources.
 * I would not want to accuse the Pak Foreign office of being an unbiased or authoritative source of information on this topic. The job of any foreign office of any country is to twist facts to suit the country's purposes. See http://www.gsp.gov.pk/pakistan/index.html for a map drawn by Pakistan government agency which is a more reliable source of information than a foreign office spokesperson.  Also look at the map on the lower right corner where it says where is Pakistan at http://www.pak.gov.pk/ and click on the + button a few times to zoom in. --- Skapur 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

7. I am not sure that the Pakistani viewpoint consists of the statement, "India's pretence to be a secular state is a deceit. In India, everything is dominated by the Hindus and the Muslims suffer persecution and repression." This seems like an unverifiable opinion and is probably vandalism. It should be deleted. --71.103.179.28 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

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

THE HINDU

Online edition of India's National Newspaper

Thursday, Dec 14, 2006

Opinion - Letters to the Editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atulsnischal 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Developments section is biased
. == This section is incredibly biased towards Indian POV ==

1. First of all, I havent been able to find Kofi Anan saying that the UN resolution is irrelevant. He only said it can not be enforced in the current situation. And suggested that Lahore Declaration had a better chance of solving the problem. Not to mention that the reference for that "quote" is an article from an indian newspaper! which in itself doesnt literally quote the UNGS!!

2. Secondly, the statement "Also contrary to popular belief, a large proportion of the Jammu and Kashmir populace wish to remain with India. This was confirmed in a 2002 survey by MORI where around 61% of the respondents said they felt they would be better off politically and economically as an Indian citizen, with only 6% preferring Pakistan instead. The rest were undecided or wished to become independent. [18]" is also completely wrong. The referenced survey asked Kashimiris many different questions and one of them asked which one of Pakistan or India will evenutally leave them better of politically and economically. This in no way suggests that they support joining India. e.g. the same survey also says

"Views are also split on the issue of granting more autonomy to Kashmir. Overall 55% support 'India and Pakistan granting as much autonomy as they can to both sides of Kashmir to govern their own affairs. However, while the majority in Srinagar and Leh support this, the majority in Jammu oppose this policy."

and

"An overwhelming 92% oppose the state of Kashmir being divided on the basis of religion or ethnicity. There is also overwhelming support - 91% - for a forum in which Kashmiris from both sides of the Line of Control can discuss common interests."

which clearly suggests they lean towards an undivided independent Kashmir.

3. Continuing with the point above, its never quoted anywhere that there is a big distinction between jammu, laddakh and rest of the kashmir. Jammu is an hindu majority region, laddakh is 50% and 49% buddhist and muslim respectively, and the rest of the kashmir is overwhelmingly muslim. So there is bound to be a significant difference in opinion between the two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.101.3.36 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Bias
Intentional Bent reasoning towards Indian POV'''

This articles Reasons behind the dispute section is extremely biased. For every Pakistani view their is a counter argument, but this is not done on the Indian view. IP198 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani View
On the pakistani view their is an Indian counter argument for every position. This is not done on the Indian view. The Pakistani view, is supposed to be the one section of the article that is completly in Pakistans pov. Please put counter arguments in the Indian view, or create a new section called Indian counter arguments to Pakistan view. Also instead of reverting, lets discuss any problems on the talk page. IP198 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets start from scratch on the Pakistani view, this way we can have references as well. It does not make any sense to have counter arguments on the Pakistani View. IP198 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan's View is misleading and twisted

It is understandable P.O.V when the writer is getting his/her information from childish anti-Pakistan articles on http://www.khurmi.com/danger.htm or alike.

I would encourage him/her to look out for sane information sources to balance the article out rather than depending on Indian propped-up propaganda sources. Ofcource they are not going to tell you the background of Kashmiri Separatists movement in their interest. They are never going to accept that India supported insurgency in Bangladesh(East-Pakistan) untill 1971, and later invaded with a four times larger force than Pakistan's to detach it.

So, Pakistan becomes a terrorist nation IF independent west-Pakistanis 'tats' for 'tits'. And Pakistan gets accused of hosting terrorism when she has banned such organizations outright and froze all their financial assets as soon as Pakistan found concrete evidence for their involvement in cross boarder activities. I didn't know that giving a moral support to freedom fighters is also considered terrorism. That way, 3/4 of the world should be considered terrorists too when they sympathize with Palestinians.

Obviously, Kashmiri freedom fighters are terrorists for India who resist 700,000 Indian Army occupation of their land, and oppression of Kashmiris under the lame excuse of insurgency from Pakistan. Just think for a second about the large number of military presence in Kashmir, which is not larger than state of New Jersey. Do you think that they need to keep such a huge military presence in that small area when people are willing to live happily with India? They are never going to tell you that India is disregarding Kashmiri's right to decide their fate for last 60 years, and U.N resolutions that calls for plebiscite for Kashmiris. And what excuse they have for that? Oh, because so called insurgents have killed or made Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' run away from Kashmir in large percentage in order to make Kashmir a 100% Muslim majority state. Well, if they have not re-invented their history, the neutral historians testifies that Kashmir has been a Muslim majority state by 9:1 or more, even before 1947 division of British India. Less than 10% of Kashmiri 'Hindus & Sikhs' didn't prefer the life under the gun point and didn't want to be part of 'collateral damage' of Indian forces as Kashmiri Muslims does, therefore, those 'Hindus & Sikhs' that moved out of Kashmir voluntarily has been a stagnant stand point for India for not upholding the U.N resolutions. Where's Kashmiris fault in there? Why Kashmiris should suffer being Muslims having their Monarch Sikh ruler signing Kashmir's annexation with India in 1948 when according to "Two-nation theory", which implemented separation of Muslim majority lands from British India to Pakistan in 1947, Kashmir was suppose to be Pakistan's part.

Neutral international arbitrators know that Kashmir was supposed to be with Pakistan regardless of their Sikh Monarch's annexation with India. 1947 comes before 1948. Therefore, Maharaja should have showed compliance to division of British India as other princely Indian states did. Indians are not going to deny that State of Hyderabad ruled by The Nizams, Muslim rulers, was dissolved into present state of Karnatica, Andhra Pardesh, and Maharashtra by force when they announced their decision to remain independent from Indian rule. This is called plain hypocricy. The fact of the matter is, India doesn't give a damn to "Two-nation theory" and has not fully accepted Pakistan as a separate sovereign state right from the beginning and has tried to even annex Pakistan back into India by force in 1965. Some don't even shy calling Pakistan as India's 'Atoot Ang'- Broken wing - of India; disregarding Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. India's policies have been very aggressive against Pakistan being the 7 times bigger force untill 1998 Pakistan's nuclear tests, which helped toned down Indians.

So, article should be labeled biased as I don't see it bringing up the reality upfront without putting all the numbers in the equations.

Please do Pakistanis a favor and hang a little 'non-neutrality' sign on this article untill it is corrected. --Shopner 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani View has been replaced with official Pakistani stand on Kashmir Conflict- Please do not alter or delete the material edited in Pakistani View section as it has been sourced directly from Ministry of Foreign Affairs- Government of Pakistan, with formal permission. Permission has been granted for reference purposes only and cannot be re-produced without formal permission from Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan. Therefore I will appreciate if somebody can fix its references and links to official Pakistani government web-site in order to understand Pakistan's official stand on Kashmir Conflict. --Shopner 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

India is not a secular nation is say it is a secular but in practice is not for example anti cow slaughtering law this law is based on mostly hindu belief that cows are sacred .Thus India not a secular nation that which it say it is it is in instead a mixture of hindu laws and secular laws.

Rahman, Maseeh (2000-05-29). "Is Nothing Sacred?". Time Asia. http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0529/india.cows.html. Retrieved 2008-02-25.

^ "Sacred No Longer". Advocates for Animals. Summer 2004. http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/farmed/cattle/indianleather.html. Retrieved 2008-02-25.

furthermore it completely dosn't talk about the 1989 rigged kashmiri election hich had provided catalsyt for the seperatist movements in indian kashmir http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/DA25Df01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister during Accession
There are some strange inconsistencies under the "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947" heading. There was use of "Islamabad" (as a way of saying "Government of Pakistan"), when Islamabad didn't even exist in 1947. I fixed that up easily enough, but it got me suspicious. Then I noticed that it mentioned "Maharaja Hari Singh and Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah of Kashmir", first in reference to asking the Government of India for help, then in reference to "completing negotiations for accession". Now I only have one or two sources of info about this, and it's possible that they are biased against India, but they both agree that Sheikh Abdullah didn't become Prime Minister until after accession (in fact, him becoming Prime Minister was one of the conditions of accession). I could swear I editted to fix this, but I have a horrible memory, so I can't be sure. If someone has good knowledge about this, I'd appreciate a clarification. I could help fill in a bit of the messiness in the article, but as I said, I only have one or 2 sources, and it could be construed that they are biased towards India. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babloyi (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I reverted the removal of Sheikh Abdullah because there was no explanation for it, which made me suspicious. But since you have pointed out the reason he was removed, I looked into it and you appear to be correct.  Thank you for explaining this point.  I took Sheikh Abdullah out of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 section, until someone comes up with better sources. PubliusFL 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nehru's Promise
It is very significant fact that Nehru, then Prime Minster of India when the issue has raised,has promised the Kashmari peoples to decide their fortune according to their wishes,as history mentions in various occasions.If Maharaja Hari Singh can sold Kashmir to India it mean the Kashmir is property of India, and then what about the millions of peoples whom wishes are not accomplished to be independent.And Its too look like a kind of Martial Law which is compressing Kashmari people as over 0.8 million Indian Forces in the Indian Kashmir Zone.

My question is "When the Indian Leaders will obey the promise of their superior?" If they are not then why Nehru make promise just to misguide the world. and, Nehru do know that I have committed a false move about Kashmir and  a Hindu Raja over 90% muslims also did not care.

And in the Pak-India disputes Wikipedia is not caring to be these articles neutral. Wikipedia official should care about the neutrality and should rely on sources that are independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashif Arshad Khan (talk • contribs) 11:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Samjhauta Express bombings
If the 2007 train fire bombings are not related to Kashmir then why is the event even listed on the time line? I don't know if that sentence needs to be removed or the event needs to be removed but someone in the know should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.228.44 (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorism", "terrorist"
All the words "terrorism", "terrorist" in this article need to be either closed in brackets or replaced with their neutral equivalents (insurgents, rebels, armed groups, etc.) as their usage violates Wikipedia NPOV policy.

This pertains to descriptions of all armed conflicts in the world.

Kacper (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A third opinion has been requested regarding an edit disagreement on the article Kashmir conflict. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute. Its major benefit is that the process provides an informal method of dispute resolution. Unfortunately, a third opinion cannot be given without some discussion of the dispute. The first step in the third opinion request process is therefore to discuss the dispute on the article talk pages.

Discussion often leads to a resolution without third party involvement. I recommend beginning one here. If discussion does not lead to a resolution of the dispute, you are welcome to submit another third opinion request. Mmyotis ^^o^^  00:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I added new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section
I gave in some new arguments for the "Indian view" section but I did not source them. But these are valid arguments and i hope there allowed to stay in the article here. I spent the time and gave new arguments for the "INDIAN VIEW" section, and i did not erase much. I mostly added, and erased very little. Please let these arguments stay, because they are good arguments from India's side. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, most of your information is highly contradictory and since this is a also a controversial topic, it really requires sources to most of the information already in the article. You can add the information again if you have proper sources. Thank you. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew this would happen. This is exactly why people hate wikipedia. Because people like you are so biast you cant handle another opinion. I mean I didnt erase much. All I did was add extra info. And the info I had was logical and factual. In other words I didnt say stupid things like KASHMIR BELONGS TO INDIA BECAUSE I SAY SO....NO....I GAVE LOGICAL arguments for INDIAS VIEW, that were not mentioned. And all you can come up with is that they are contradictory arguments? Can you explain one thing that I wrote that was not a logical argument or was contradictory? NO YOU CANT. AND YOU WONT. Becuase your not open minded to more options.....I love how this guy tells me my arguments are contradictory and contraversional, and gives me no examples to prove his points lol.....I mean the section is called India's view. And i gave more of Indias view that was not mentioned. And you erase it? Amazing. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your outrage is in vain simply because that's not how Wikipedia works. No matter how logical, coherent and rational your arguments may be, they are your opinions unless you can provide reliable sources to back up whatever you write. Opinions and original research count for nothing on Wikipedia, and must especially be avoided on sensitive article such as this. Also, if do you come to Wikipedia with reliable sources, it is imperative to distill their content and then edit the article to conform to the cardinal rule of neutrality.


 * I hope you understand what I've said and that you will refrain from personal attacks in the future. Have a nice day, Max - You were saying? 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Max I understand what your saying. But just because I dont cite sources (which by the way is done all over wikipedia) doesnt make my arguments untrue.....Ill give you ONE example.....Lots of Pakistanis say that Kashmiris should be free right? Well a logical response to that is that there are Balochis and Pashtuns in Paksitan that want to be free also, so why doesnt Paksitan let them be free as well?. So that is ONE example of a logical argument from the Indian side, and just because I dont cite it as a resource, its stilll logical argument. I mean right here on Wikipedia there is an article called PASHTUNISTAN, and it talks about the land that Pashtuns want. Now im not someone who knows, or cares to know, how to cite things on this website. But someone else can do it cant they? I mean there are so many aritcles on this site that are not cited (i assume) so why pick and chooose what to cite? And anyway like i said, someone else can cite it for me cus its on this website......as for personal attacks....no i was not just attacking for no reason. I was responding to what the other guy was saying. He wasnt using logic with me. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Some arguments:

1. Pakistan invaded and stole a piece of Kashmir even before the Maharaja had decided which country to choose.

2. Kashmir was officially ceded to India by Hari Singh. It was agreed that the King decideds to who his state should be ceded to. Hari Singh chose India.

3. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to use the "Muslims for Pakistan" argument as India has states with a larger minority population (%) than Jammu and Kashmir (e.g. Lakshwadeep: 99% Muslim, Nagaland: 89% Christian). People of these states have never been persecuted by the government for being minorities in Hindu majority India. Compare that with Pakistan's treatment of minorities, which have been systematically reduced from <12% of the population today to about >3%.

4. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to use the "the majority of people should vote on what country they want to join" argument, 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.

5. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to compare Kashmir issue to Junagadh because Junagadh was a majority Hindu state. By accepting Junagadh into Pakistan, Pakistan would have contradicted its "Two Nation Theory" which explicitly stated "Hindus and Muslims can't live together as one nation". This policy has never been accepted by India. Till today India is secular (i.e. for everybody) while Pakistan is an Islamic Republic (i.e. for Muslims).

6. It is irrelevant for Pakistan to compare Kashmir issue to Hyderabad state because Hyderebad never showed any interest in Joining Pakistan. They proposed independence, which was completely turned down by the British. Moreover Hyderabad was bordered by all sides by India. This would be a threat for India, and a bigger threat for Hyderabad (had it not joined India) as it would have to depend on India for all external affairs (i.e. imports, exports, telecoms). India annexed the state because the Nizam employed Razakars (rouges) to attack the local populace in neighbouring states (which were already part of Indian Union). As such, India retaliated and overthrew the Nizam. The populace willingly joined India. Moreover Hyderabad (and Berar) were majority Hindu areas and would not have accomodated Pakistan's theory of creation (i.e. Two Nation Theory, whereby Hindus and Muslims cannot live as one state).

7. Pakistan claims that they advocate the notion of "self-determination of the people of the land". That's why they wanna "free" the Kashmiris, who they claim "have determined" wanting free state called Kashmir. Why then don't they practice that same notion for the Balochis and Pashtuns who want to seperate from Pakistan and have their own homeland? Why won't they respect the Pashtuns and Balochis "self-determination" to be free, and free them?

8. Azad Jammu and Kashmir act (Article 7) declared Islam to be the state religion of PoK, disqualified non-Muslims from election to the Presidency and forbade activities prejudicial or detrimental to the ideology of the State's accession to Pakistan. It prescribed in the oath of office the pledge "to remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan". How then are they gonna accomodate the non Muslims in Ladakh and Jammu? How are these native Kashmiris who are non-Muslims going to be represented?

9. Pakistan is constantly calling for a plebiscite. However for a UN Resolution mandating a plebiscite to be valid, Pakistan should first vacate its part of Kashmir, as they are unrightfully occupying the area against the will of the Maharaja.

10. 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 plebiscite from the Kashmiris. If a plebiscite is done, it should include the Kashmiri Pandits who were expelled from the state by Muslims driven by Pakistan.

11. While Pakistan supports a free Kashmir, India doesn't because Pakistan has been sending in insurgents to instill fear in the local populace to side them. A free Kashmir will only increase Pakistans grip over the region and will be a insurgent training ground like how Pakistan is today. In a future conflict, it is clear that the Kashmiris trained and instigated by Pakistan will not be neutral or side India. Moreover, Hindus and Buddhists in Jammmu and Ladakh will be systematically expelled like the Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir Valley.

12. Pakistan claims it "Kashmir is a part of Pakistan as much as how Pakistan is a part of Kashmir". Then why did they give a large piece (almost 50,000 sq. km) of Kashmir to China in 1965, more so without the consent of the people? Till today, Pakistan recognises that area as a part of Xinjiang although the area has historically been a part of the Princely state of Kashmir. Pakistan accuses India of "tearing Kashmir apart", but does not realise that India claims Kashmir in full, while Pakistan claims only 5/6th of Kashmir. Hence, it is Pakistan who has torn Kashmir apart. The reason is simple, because Kashmir does not rightfully belong to Pakistan, they have no qualms giving parts of it away. Which country would give away land which is rightfully theirs?

13. Although, Azad means "independent", Pok is governed by a defacto puppet government whose independence is not recognised by any nation including Pakistan itself. It is administered and controlled by Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently failed to fulfil its obligations to introduce "meaningful and representative democratic structures" in PoK. In this context, the absence of Kashmiri representation in the Pakistan National Assembly and the fact that PoK is governed through the "Ministry of Kashmir Affairs" in Islamabad proves how sincere they are regarding "Azad". Further that the "Kashmir Council" is dominated by Pakistani officials and the chief secretary, inspector-general of police, accountant-general and finance secretary in the PoK are all from Pakistan.

14. If Pakistan is so passionate about Kashmir, why then don't they develop it as how they develop the rest of Pakistan? Compare economy of IoK with PoK. IoK's economy is about 12 times the size of PoK's. IoK has one of the lowest poverty rates compared to all Indian states (lower than even Maharashtra, home to India's financial capital Mumbai). In comparison, PoK is one of the poorest regions in all of Pakistan.

15. While Pakistan always accuses India of curbing freedom of Kashmiris, the World Freedom Report report proved Indian Kashmir to be "Partly Free", while Pakistani Kashmir was "Not Free". There is worse off persecution in PoK, but this doesn't get reported as there is no freedom of speech in Pakistan, as how there is in India.

16. Pakistan argues that they had already designated the "K" for Kashmir (in the name Pakistan, i.e. Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, Balochistan), so it's rightfully theirs. Then why didn't they designate a "B" for Bengal / Bangladesh when it formed a prominant part of Pakistan pre-1971? Did it mean by that accord alone it wasn't theirs, because there's no "B" designated?

Thanks. 60.50.65.58 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Vah! Kya baat hai! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.24.226 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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


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

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Kashmir-Accession-Document-b.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

the Article has serious Errors!
Deeply dissapointed the way facts have been presented here, and elsewhere in the wikipedia relating to the topic of Kashmir. Am not saying it is biased peice of work, but am saying it completly ignores some important facts. am talking specifically about the events that unfolded in 1947.

If someone has access to this book already mentioned in the wikipedia: Freedom at Midnight, the book is by an Englishmen, and hence has an element of neutrality. The section pertaining to Kashmir needs to be rewritten, and copied elsewhere where required.

Please someone look into the issue! Else I will surely take time out to rewrite the mentioned section. Msolution (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also disappointed in this article. Hopefully it can be cleaned up and some good information can be added. Good luck rewriting the section, I'll take a look at it later.

AetherSage (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC) AetherSage

Human Rights Abuse
The second paragraph of this section has a indesputable bias. Words like "innocent", "terrorist", and the phrase "terrorists of Compassionate Islam" have no place in the article. It's one thing to present some historical perspective on historical injustices, another to do so in the style that has been presented —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khxoxkh (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This Article Sucks
Look, I came here to get a one minute overview of what this dispute is about, and I read for 10 min and still barely understood. Trim this thing down or provide a summary! Even the summary list of India and Pakistan's claims is like 20 bullets long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.102.197 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! All I got was what I had already known-that this is like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that India and Pakistan are both fighting over a territory, and that ineffective, unclear, and contradictory statements have made any claims null, so Pakistan and India should both shut up, listen to the people, and come up with an agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.60.88 (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits of User:Ontopofcosts
His edits have recently sparked a large edit war. Would the persons involved please discuss this here to prevent any more edit wars? Inferno,  Lord of   Penguins  20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note I said discuss, not argue. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that the two main parties, User:Ontopofcosts and User:Algebraic123 are blocked until 3 January 2009. When their blocks have expired, they are strongly  encouraged to participate in this discussion. Inferno,   Lord of   Penguins  21:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I was not invloved in the edit war but did an edit just before it started. I see that the page has been protected because of the edit war but I will ask the admins to kindly revert the page to the last edit made by user: Inferno, Lord of Penguins. Right now the page holds the edits made by user:Ontopofcosts. These edits are just removal of information that is properly sourced and there is no reason to remove them.

This is the first revert that caught my eye made by Ontopofcosts [] The edit summary contained "original research" the reason for editing which is clearly misleading as cited info was removed. I reverted it asking to pinpoint the original research section, which was within a minute reverted back to his version by Ontopofcosts without giving any reason whatsoever,here [].

Afterwards the edits ensued between user:Algebraic123 who reverted back to cited version and user:Ontopofcosts who kept on reverting to his, deleting cited info without reason.[]

User:Inferno, Lord of Penguins reverted again to last version edited by me [] but it was again reverted by Ontopofcosts. User: Ontopofcosts continuously kept on reverting edit by three different users without giving any valid reason for it. Right now the article holds the uncited version. If he/she have any valid reason to revert the cited information I'll ask to discuss the matter here or the version need to be reverted to the revision 261311706 by Inferno, Lord of Penguins, which was the version before the edit wars started.203.99.53.70 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.53.70 (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)  Sorry about the signature.I was logged off accidently.September88 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus I'll just like to clarify that the information reverted by user:Ontopofcosts stating it "original research" is published news from these three neutral and reliable resources

[] BBC

[] Human Rights Watch

[] Time (magazine)

You can see here []

Removing them makes no sense and as I said before needs to be added back.September88 (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ontopofcosts is the banned user Hkelkar. I've blocked the account indefinitely. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Algebraic123 must be watched
I haven't even touched the Kashmir conflict page yet and User:Algebraic123 already started making baseless allegations against me on my talkpage. I request everyone to keep a watch on the user! Pen.of.truth (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree about User:Algebraic123. he needs to be kept an eye on. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

February 209: Neutrality Disputed
The neutrality of this article is strongly disputed. Pro-Indian editors are aggresively pushing a pro-Indian POV and reverting valid edits by other wikipedia editors.

In the article the call from India asking US to declare pakistan terrorist state was made by Indian Prime minister(vajpayee0 and deputy prime minister ( advani). This was the official position of legally elected representatives of India and so qualifies as official Indian govt view

none of the statements in Pakistan view have any reference to a govt website. somebody knowledgeable might want to work on them. Wikireader41 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hindu nationalist propaganda
This is totally pro indian the amount of unsourced indian views is amazing why isnt any sane editor deleting them or atleast bring back the pakistani views which are deleted by wikireader the pro indian lobbyist? 86.154.149.150 (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve the 'Pakistani view' section. NONE of the comments there are sourced from ANY pakistani Government website and that section is in desperate need for improvement. So instead of ranting here can somebody knowledgeable work on the section and improve it. surely pakistani govt has an official position !!!! and please refrain from calling name. I do not get paid for doing this so I am not a lobbyist. just trying to help the world understand the truth behind Kashmir conflict. cheers :) Wikireader41 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I think kashmiri cause has been remarkably negatively influenced by Pakistan. pakistan in a recent BBC poll was near bottom ofthe table of countries considered a "positive influence" in the world ( tied with Iran) BBC worldservice polll 2009.

Kashmiris today would have been MUCH better off if pakistan had left them alone. Any kid in Kashmir ( as well as balawaristan) will tell you that. So all you Islamofascists out there chill and have a cold beer.15:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, Wikireader41, I thought that alcohol in Islam is Gunaah. Although, in my religion, the Gods seem to drink it without resulting in any visible after effects! Oh, and forgot to say man, "Cheers"!!! Shovon (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm


 * I hadn't bothered to read this talk page for a while and now that I have all I can say is hmm - these remarks are a bit of an eye-opener.


 * Kashmir would have been better off as part of India? Ask any "kid in Kashmir ( as well as balawaristan)", well whatever their opinions of the Pakistani state - there is near universal antipathy at the idea of joining India (and believe me they far more loyal to Pakistan than Kashmiris in J&G state are to India). In the Northern Areas people reject the idea of being considered Kashmiri let alone being part of India. For arguments sake say the whole of the former state had become part of India in 1947,by the 1956 States Reorganisation Act the erstwhile state would have been split up into its constituent units. How would it have been under Indian rule? Would we have problems similar to the Nagaland problem would we have groups akin to the National Liberation Front of Tripura? And religious groups supporting them.


 * There has been quite a lot of violence in Indian Kashmir, quite a lot of local anger against the government, curiously too most people in the Kashmir Valley as well as the Northern Areas etc consider 'cold beer' to be Gunaah. Perhaps it's attitudes like these which are alienating them, if Jammu had been part of Pakistan, would it be cool if I said, chill out guys and have a beef burger or would that be adharma? Pahari Sahib  22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day wikireader will turn out to be a sock of hkelkar and his deletion of valid pakistani viewpoints will be reinserted just a matter of time by the way indian occupied kashmir struggle seems to be gaining ground in the international community especially mr Obama well hinduism is after all declining in the west and especially in India islam is the fastest growing faith after all 86.162.67.153 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Not to mention david miliband ha ha indians first worshipped obama now they abuse him againt hindu back stabbing at its best 86.162.67.153 (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What About the People of Kashmir?
Apart from the excessive Indian propaganda in this article another major shortfall is the lack of attention to the people of Kashmir themselves who are a neglected but critical party to this dispute. It is presented as if everything began in 1947 between India and Pakistan and there is minimal reference to the historical background to the Kashmir conflict. For example the fact that Kashmir has enormous religous significance to the Hindu people is over looked. Hindu's have gone on holy pilgrimage to Kashmir for thousands of years so clearly this is important to Indians. Also, Kashmir has historically been independent and many Kashmiri's would like to be independent of both India and Pakistan. The views of the people of Kashmir need to be considered. --HotRaja (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * hot raja the ONLY reason kashmiris are not free is that pakistani tribals attacked kashmir in 1947 forcing the maharaja to accede. subsequently they refused to withdraw thereby preventing the plebiscite.  nehru had agreed to the plebiscite  and would have gone through with it had pakistan withdrawn. they were not willing to face the potential embarrasment of muslim dominated kashmir joining India thereby making the two nation theory look bad and jinnah look like an idiot.  you might want to ask some pakistanis who claim to be pro kashmir why they did not withdraw from kashmir as clearly required by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 ??????  I have actually lived in Ram Munshi Bagh and know kashmir very well.  the true enemy of kashmiris ( & pakistanis) is not India but wahhabi islam.  It is interesting that pakistanis believe that kashmiris want to join a country which for most of its existence has been a dictatorship.  It is like asking for freedom to go to prison.  Sufi islam will be dead if pakistanis have their way.  Luckily the chance of that happening is ZERO.  cheers :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, the above shows a rather biased interpretations of events, to say that "the ONLY reason kashmiris are not free is that pakistani tribals attacked kashmir in 1947 forcing the maharaja to accede" is to make a couple of fallacious assumptions. Namely that the J&K Princely State was a homogeneous entity, it wasn't - also making the assumption that everyone in the state would have supported the Maharaja. Not true - also why would there be so much trouble and hardship inflicted upon people in "freedom", this may prove to be instructive. This wahhabi stuff you have mention is a red herring, just seems to be a way conflating and obfuscating genuine grievances and issues with what is actually a negligible viewpoint.  Pahari Sahib  20:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pahari Sahib Indian Kashmir is more free than Pakistan administered kashmir ( not to mention rest of pakistan). we are upto our 11th chief minister I am not making the assumption that J & K is a homogenous entity.  Ladakh Jammu Balawaristan are obviously very different from the valley.  wahhabi islam is the mortal threat facing pakistan.  I do not believe their was a popular movement to join pakistan EVER.  this is a concocted idea.  While some muslims from the valley wanted freedom from both India AND pakistan at one time I think most people have realized the impracticality of that proposition.  the militancy has been run by hired non Kashmiri 'Starving Jihadis' who were out of a job after soviets left afghanistan an supported by pak army wanting to avenge its humiliating defeat and brutal dismemberment of pakistan in 1971.  What a bunch of misguided pakistanis believe is of no consequence.  BTW do you believe 9/11 was done by CIA to discredit the 'Religion of Peace'???  I wouldn't be surprised.  have a nice day ;-)Wikireader41 (talk)
 * Oh dear, more obfuscation - you are avoiding the issue and muddying the waters. I have never actually expressed a viewpoint on whether there "was a popular movement to join pakistan". Have I? where is the proof? Again you are avoiding the issue


 * Why would someone who supposedly is an expert on the Muslims of the valley invoke the term religion of Peace, make an incorrect assumption that as I am Pakistani I am likely to believe 9/11 was a CIA job. Not to mention going off on a tangent about Afghanistan and the 1971 war. Try having a look at WP Good faith and a little civility wouldn't go amiss either. Oh and finally, have a good day too yaar :-) Pahari Sahib  20:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan and 1971 war are intimately tied to current issues in Kashmir.  had pakistan not been so brutally humiliated in 1971 I dont think we would have this much trouble in kashmir.  Only time in History of Human conflict that a country was torn apart in 2 straight weeks with 93000 POWs.  even mighty Americans could not do it anywhere. did I call you Pakistani ?? i dont think so.  You seem to be very fond of the word 'obfuscation'  wonder why.  do you know somebody who specializes in it ???? asking for proof???   that usually is something pakistan does doesnt it.  Civility will be shown to civil people rest assured.  religion of peace is a legitimate term for a certain religion.  i did not assume that you thought that 9/11 was an inside job  just said I would not be surprised.  2 entirely different things.  BTW I corrected your falsehood in the article Balawaristan National Front that the UNHCR report thought indian Kashmir was 'not free'.  please read the report.  It said Baltistan Gilgit was 'Not free' but said Indian kashmir was 'partly free' which is pretty accurate.  you could have made a genuine mistake in which case I magnanimously forgive you.  but it is good to know somebody who has some basic knowledge of kashmir issue like yourself rather than dealing with  madrassah educated idiots we have previously seen on wikipedia. Cheers ;-) Wikireader41 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again you are expressing your point of view, "Afghanistan and 1971 war are intimately tied to current issues in Kashmir" - no proof is given for this, the Kashmir conflict pre-dates this. "Civility will be shown to civil people rest assured" really good to hear, I do hope you follow this (I see you have received a warning about incivility). You said "did I call you Pakistani ?? i dont think so. " - how about when you said "What a bunch of misguided pakistanis believe is of no consequence" when replying to my comments.


 * You said "i did not assume that you thought that 9/11 was an inside job just said I would not be surprised." - explain why you thought this to begin with - and what relevance it has to this article? Have I expressed support for any groups or any kinds of activity? "religion of peace is a legitimate term for a certain religion", to quote the article on the subject "The Religion of peace (sometimes abbreviated as ROP or RoP) is a political neologism used as a pejorative description of Islam". I am a bit curious about why you would use the term when you stated that it was the wahabis causing the trouble. Sufis belong to the same religion too. Oh and thanks for being so magnanimous, indeed I am honoured ;-)  Pahari Sahib   18:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * when i said I would not be surprised It automatically meant that I was willing to believe that you did not believe 9/11 was an inside job. 9/11 is intimately connected with kashmir since it lead to Pakistan being forced to withdraw support to jihadis and this has lead to peace in the valley.  I agree the conflict itself predates the 1971 war but the insurgency that started in 1989 ( soon after Jihadis became unemployed after soviets withdrew from afghanistan - curious isnt it)clearly came after 'brutal dismemberment and Humiliation' of pakistan in 1971.  key words being 'Brutal Dismemberment and Humiliation' of magnitude unknown in History of Mankind ( OK maybe 1967 defeat of middle eastern muslims by Israeili jews in 1967 was more humiliating) .  I was commenting on kashmir conflict and 'a bunch of misguided pakistanis' refered to just them.   If you assumed I was refering to you that is your mistake.  I am glad you are willing to learn some facts about kashmir.  Maybe this story on BBC will tell you what I meant when I said that wahhabis pose a mortal danger to Pakistan Pakistan 'in fight for survival'.  religion of peace is just that stop putting your own interpretation into this.  Wikipedia is not the Final authority on this word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader41 (talk • contribs)


 * The conflict in Kashmir has nothing to do with the 1971 war or what you term as the "Brutal Dismemberment and Humiliation" of Pakistan. To whom were you referring to when you said "What a bunch of misguided pakistanis believe is of no consequence" if it wasn't my comments then was it referring to the link I added (which incidentally is in the Vale of Kashmir). The view that there is trouble in Indian Kashmir cannot be attributed to Pakistanis (misguided or not) alone. These events have been described by reliable news sources such as this CNN report.


 * There are other broader deeper problems that simply cannot be explained by blaming Pakistanis, the Kashmiris themselves or other groups. You said "stop putting your own interpretation into this. Wikipedia is not the Final authority on this word." I was not putting my own interpretation on anything - just quoting from another wiki article about your turn of phrase.


 * Pahari Sahib
 * * I agree with your view. The problem is, we (both Indians & Pakistanis) fail to look in to the actual issues and start a fight over everything, including Wikipedia contents. :-( Shovon (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Im not new to wikipedia but new to editing wiki pages but this anon ip seems very confrontational and anti hindu as for wikireader41 he seems to have a highly islamophobic and extreme anti pakistani views so i believe both of them should be excluded from editing any article on wikipedia its funny how both these editors reside outside of south asia but still bark nationalistic garbage pity Rashtra (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(unident) I have to agree with Shovan's above comments that we "fail to look in to the actual issues and start a fight over everything", this section is ostensibly about the people of Kashmir. More focus should be given to their views - there are bound to be several different viewpoints, most of which will probably offend nationalists on all sides. The problem with these type of articles is that they became breeding groups for certain types of users from different sides attempting one-upmanship. Pahari Sahib 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I for once would agree with Pahari . In the kashmir conflict central figures ought to be Kashmiris.  the problem is that pakistan(is) thinks just because it is a muslim country it has a birthright to champion their cause.  also to user Shovon  beware of Pakistanis adopting Indian sounding names on Wikipedia and pretending to be Indians.   Wahhabi Phobic is a better description for me.  I have several Sufi friends and I get along just fine with them.  but the people who think women cant go to school,  Non muslims are Dhimmis, muslims should not be allowed to leave islam etc I would never be OK with them and am very proud of the fact.  I am actually thinking of volunteering and going to Afghanistan and see if I get to kill some real bad guys.   My buddies tell me that their is no sight better than a Terrorist with his Brains blown apart with a straight shot to the head.  wouldnt want to go through life without experiencing that one.  cheers;-)Wikireader41 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually my point was there are three parties to the Kashmir conflict, the Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris. This article focuses on the India vs Pakistan aspect and the competing claims - but not much is made of the Kashmiris themselves. What do you mean "beware of Pakistanis adopting Indian sounding names on Wikipedia" - is there anything wrong with using names that are not overtly Islamic? Islami Sahib  19:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Pahari sahib nothing wrong with using islamic names. believe me not ALL muslims are terrorists.  perfectly OK to identify yourself as a muslim and pakistani.  like I said Sufi islam is perfectly compatible with 21st century.  Its the Wahhabi islam which causes conflict.  user rashtra is obviously not from India looking at his edits .  yet as far as I know rashtra is not a word in any other language except sanskrit.  maybe he is a closet hinduphile  !!!!.


 * Oh you were referring to user rashtra, I didn't say there was anything wrong with using Islamic names. Anyway if he wants to use a Sanskrit name, a middle English name, a Pakistani, Arabic or a Klingon name - then that's up to him. The main thing is no-one is POV pushing or vandalising articles, bearing in mind a phrase from another religion you could say (in a Wikipedia context) "by their edits ye shall know them" . Pahari Sahib  14:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to theis article. the section on 'Pakistani View' does not have any references to official pakistan government viewpoint on kashmir. it is a hotchpotch of arguments from individuals. i suggest we delete that section unless somebody can improve it. I have researched it myself and cant find any official government of Pakistan documents stating their position. --Wikireader41 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't just delete a section just because you thinks it needs improving at worse tag it with  Pahari Sahib  14:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern Territories
I have deleted the following passage at the beginning of the page because (a) it didn't cite sources (b) it is of doubtful validity (especially the reference to the NWFP) and (c) it is not of critical importance to the subject of the page.

In 1935 British rulers forced the Dogra King of Jammu and Kashmir to lease parts of his kingdom for 60 years. These became part of the North-West Frontier Province. The move was designed to strengthen the northern boundaries of British India, especially from Russia.

Reddyuday (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline
please do not take out the timeline from this article. a link to the main timeline article is OK Wikireader41 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a separate article covering the timeline of events. Therefore, a link to that article is sufficient. I must note that the timeline anyways requires a lot of copy-editing since it is written poorly. --Nosedown (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sections which have a link to main article. having a bigger article does not usually mean that a smaller intro to the main article is not appropriate.  please feel free to ce as necessary.  I do not believe it was written poorly at allWikireader41 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Smaller intro? I'm sorry but that timeline is no "smaller intro". Firstly, much of the material is redundant. A detailed list of various terrorist attacks belongs to insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, not to this article. Secondly, name one article of featured status which gives the entire timeline of events on the main page. Go through List of timelines and you would notice that barely any of the main articles have a "small intro" to the timeline articles. --Nosedown (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is smaller than the main article. I do not see any redundant material at all.  a detailed list of main terrorist attacks belongs to this list as this is a core manifestation of the conflict.  the main article could use some help in case you are interested .  it is quite poorly written IMHO.Wikireader41 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

About this complete article's POV
First, I am neither indian or pakistani. I want to say to administrator, the complete article is a Indian POV and the article does not reflect the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.49.109.157 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

== Mughalnz (talk)Peceful protest movment need an section so does disputed 1987 election to bring gratwer undertnading of the conflictMughalnz (talk) ==

Disputed elections some one interested  in making theses as sections as part of the topics so a consensus on the section can be reached on the topics

Disputed 1987 elections
why does this not have a section while 2008 section has a section it had started the militancy

Since after 1987 Disputed rigged Sate elections in Indian Administered Kashmir that an Indian National Congress party leader called Khem Lata Wukhloo in 2002 stated from BBC news page"I remember there was massive rigging in the 1987 elections. It shook ordinary people's faith in the... democratic process' Furthermore it had resulted in some of the 'states legislative assembly' 'formed militant wings' later on after the election forming and creating the catalyst for the Insurgency in 1989 and the Peaceful Protest Movement in 1989 ., ,...

Peaceful Protest movement
The Peaceful Protest Movement that had started in 1989 in Indian Administered Kashmir, has been a 'purely indigenous, purely Kashmiri' by Washington Post from Mirwaiz Farooq a Kashmiri party leader) 'Gandhi style' (stated by Wall Street Journal) peaceful protest movement in Indian Administered Kashmir since 1989 continues today. The movement was created for the same reason as the insurgency ;the disputed rigged elections in 1987 ,Kashmir dispute and grievances with the Indian government specifically the Indian Military that has committed human rights violations .This reinforced by the United Nations that has said India has committed Human rights violations .(the movement continues today) ..

==Hindu Mercanaries or Militant or Insurgents or all

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militancy - a meanig of militancy  warring and fighting also for political and other cause ,in the broader context it is militancy  regadless of motivation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

hindu militancy or Hindu mecenaries ;or both
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militancy - a meanig of militancy  warring and fighting alsofor political and ohter cause in the broader context it is militancy  regadless of motivation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

' Take the case of Manoj Kumar, who joined militancy' http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041111/j&k.htm#2

is he a miliatnt please help me make it npov fell free to add or edit

more relisble resoures http://media2.intoday.in/microsites/jkmilitancy/2006Jan23/1.html

' Frineship wiht militant made me become one '


 * There are some issues here, first the reports say "about a dozen", given the magnitude of terrorists documenting 12 mercenaries is undue. However if it needs to be added, it should read something like "Of late, the Mujahadeen groups have started recruiting poor and unemployed youth from the Hindu community. They are paid based on the tasks. For these youth, there is also the added advantage of government rehabilitation (monetary and employment) when they surrender, as has been the case with one such mercenary recruit who surrendered in less than six months."

woul'nt this

thanks i am just scoping for more info then add on later an get u to check before add new info Mughalnz (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

revolt of south west of jammu and Kashmir
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=ONDsQCO9yTQC&pg=PA254&dq=richard+symonds+%2Bstatesman%2Bpoonch#v=onepage&q=richard%20symonds%20%2Bstatesman%2Bpoonch&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

it is indian writer,s article
it is only to show the indian view point in this article of kashmir conflict. it is against the original conflict history of kashmir. so proper respobsibility is required by the higher responsibles of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.45.74 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Indianized Wikipedia
The whole wikipedia -every article, ( if india is invloved ) is india-leaning. wikipedia nowadays is very much an "Indianopedia" rather than any neutral encyclopedia. Everwhere all are indian versions of truth. Could any administrator begin a 'reform' to make the REALLY NEUTRAL versions to get rid of these indians POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.251.59.182 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some specific examples to bring up? If so these can be fixed - see Neutral point of view/FAQ if you need some guidance. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

moved info
i moved the info to related area.because then it kind of repeating info pakistan support of militants. What do you think?Mughalnz (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Also integration the stuff about rand and restart of militancy into the same pragraph.The lead paragraph is supposed to short ,what do youthink? Mughalnz (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it is not kind of repeating information support pakistan militants. also stuff the integration what you man are talking about. cheers --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * also section the Al qaeda in Kashmir activity expand needed. can you kindly work on that--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need as you have quite actively expanded the info already from what i read on main al qaeda main page a minute ago.

What meant was join the 2 bottom paragraph together.In conclusion summarize the the two section .As info on the paragraphs have similar info about supports of groups .Mughalnz (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * that not make sense much. one point is about kashmir movement peaceful other is about pakistan support to foreigner murderous militant jihadi who are also now busy spreading murder and mayhem in Pakistan.  what mean you that join paragraph. I dont see information same betweeen two groups. sorry my dyslexia. but you sure must understand pleasely.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Pakistan support of non-state actor groups


 * Which is written in second to last paragraph
 * Also written in the last paragraph.
 * That's what i meant by Pakistan supports of the groups ,this is the similar info ,Thanks Mughalnz (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * man megetting confused you by. paragraph 2nd last has indian allegartions.  last para has allegations international. 2 different things altogether.  maybe we should make them bold and expand them further???--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

His name is spelt as Gandhi not Ghandi.
I have been trying to correct Mahatma Gandhi's name, which has been spelt in this article. It is importannt to spell it write because the wrong spelling and in turn the pronounciation can mean some very different things. So I would really appreciate it if anybody who knows how to would correct the spelling.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megha.hegde (talk • contribs) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Shovon (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Two nation theory as the root of Kashmir problem.
Two-Nation Theory as the root of Kashmir problem.

Kashmir conflict is often considered to be the basic reason for rivalry between India and Pakistan, it is however to be noted that the Two nation theory which principally denies that hindus and muslim can co-exist is the root cause of the conflict. the trustees of this theory went on to become the founders of pakistan. thus as far as the logic of pakistan goes kashmir must be ceeded as a muslim majority state to pakistan ( as per indian independence act 1946 )

However india which takes pride in it's religious and social diversity. can not, In any case accept The Two Nation Theory. Thus acceptance of kashmir as part of pakistan, is against the secular tradition of democratic india, and at the same time denial of claims on kashmir, will falter the foundation of Islamic republic of Pakistan. thus we cannot expect a solution to this problem in near future.

As long as the people of pakistan cherrish the Two nation theory. which advocates intolerence and hatred, peacefull co-existence of these mighty South Asian neighbours is not possible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashutosh2405 (talk • contribs).

The nations of pakistan and india were created due to the two nation theory,the muslims of subcontinent wanted a seperate homeland (two nation theory ) so not cherishing Is impossible as it is an integral part of our history AND it would also be like an insult to many great muslims of the subcontinent e.g.sir syed ahmed andd illama iqbal and it would also mean unacknowledgeing the creation of pakistan which is impossible ! and bythe way i dont think that decisions of a country should be made on account of the country's pride but on the basis of logical thinking ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniqadir (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Kashmir Uprising 2008
I have added basic information about the latest massive pro-freedom uprising in the Valley, I will add more content to it later on and also try to maintain neutral PoV or PoV of all the three sides, as can be seen, Pakistan has little to do with the current uprising, so I'd say their are Pakistani,Indian and Kashmiri POV.

Thank You.

removed because
not says anything about indian government

What is the concerns...?
Dear subjects,

Concerning the issue of Kashmir, it is a great deal of pain to see that those who are totally out of domus of it are showing major concerns towards it, as i feel Pakistan & Bharat are only two parties effected by it and apart from them no one has right to pass any judgement over it.

Please provide your inputs over the matter.

Thanks S.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.64.10 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite
I did as best as I could to rewrite the first section of the article, but it still needs a LOT of work. This article sucks a bit less as of now, but it shouldn't "suck" at all. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Just finished editing Indo-Pakistani War section, going to the next. Hyblackeagle22 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Auto archiving
Anyone object to the setup of auto archiving - say 90 days/5 threads? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Duckiefrog, 15 August 2010
article contains references to conflict between India and China in the north east of India which is of no relevence to article about the Kashmir valley conflict. i.e line below needs removing:

India and China have clashed once, in 1962 over Aksai Chin as well as the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.

Duckiefrog (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 130.89.202.8, 14 July 2010
In "Human rights abuse" under subheading "Indian administered Kashmir" there is a sentence "about 100,000-50,000 Kashmiri Muslim refugees because of Islamic militants atrocities and Islamic militants fighting with Indian army" taken from reference 93. However, in Ref 93 it is stated a bit differently "over 100,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been displaced, as they are subjected to mounting atrocities by the Islamic militants and Indian security forces". I hope that after reading the two sentences you would be able to note the difference and correct the article. Thanks

Human right watch dog has listed on recent finding that 17% are Shia kashmiri Muslims did not share same view of pro-indepent kashmir as 46% of Sunni kashmiri muslims do. Allmost 65% of majority dominated sunni pakistani muslims ignited Indian occupied kashmiri sunni muslims on religious intolrance. Shia (17%),Hindu( 4%),sikh( 1%) are aganist the division of Indian occupied kashmir. http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5427:ikhwanis-activated-to-create-shia-sunni-rift&catid=2:local-news&Itemid=3 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3045122.stm http://india_resource.tripod.com/kashmir.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.164.53 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

130.89.202.8 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The wording of the sentence has been changed between the time of making this request and the time this request was being actioned; marking this as partially done - have corrected the figure to "over 100,000" from "about 100,000-500,000". Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vpandita, 12 September 2010
India has made it clear that Pakistan should not sponsor religious terrorism and priorities dividing Indian states in the name of religion. Indian is a multicultural, multi religious country. Indian people hold deep faith living unity in diversity. This is in spite of fact that India is proud of Muslim living in Indian states, which is more than Muslims population living in Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpandita (talk • contribs) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of pakistani and indian veiw points and also kashmiri pundits
Well to put this as clear as possible there are far too many indians editing pakistani topics and manipulating data heavily the pakistani view point doesnt even have a single counter while indian veiws are posted in a very biased and propgandanist way.

I also think more attention should be payed on fake encounters carried out by indian troops whenever i edit it it is always deleted by some pro indian these pages needs a seriously needed bias check and updating ure ignoring muslims in kashmir and posting baseless pandit claims.

I disagree. Kashmiri pandits and sikhs had been living in kashmir for centuries.Strating in 1989, Pakistan sponsored terriost and kashmiri muslims started brutully killing minority pandits and sikhs. 6% Minority non-muslim population was forced to flee kashmir valley at gun point. These minoiry non-muslims families ( around 15 lack = 15 million ) are now living living as kashmiri migrants in india. http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0403/india.singhpora.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSDEL10361920071022 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/10/world/kashmir-muslims-kidnap-indian-aide-s-daughter.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSDEL231935 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpandita (talk • contribs) 04:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia seriously needs to monitor indian propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BILLYBOY09 (talk • contribs).

The reason fake encounters are not featured in the Kashmir Conflict is probably because it has no direct link with Kashmir dispute. Fake Encounters have taken place in almost every state of India by Police or Military forces for rewards and promotions. This has nothing to do with Kashmir conflict. Fake Encounters have nothing to do with Kashmir's Freedom or anything else therefore It can not be mentioned in this section. I think there should a new topic "Fake Encounters in India" where all such cases can be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxKG (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vpandita, 12 September 2010
Human right watch dog has listed on recent finding as 17% Shia kashmiri Muslims Population did not share same view of pro-indepedent kashmir as 46% of Sunni kashmiri muslims do. 65% of majority dominated sunni pakistani muslims population ignite 46% Indian occupied sunni kashmiri muslims on religious aspiration. Shia (17%),Hindu( 4%),sikh( 1%) are against Article 370 of kashmir. http://www.kashmirobserver.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5427:ikhwanis-activated-to-create-shia-sunni-rift&catid=2:local-news&Itemid=3 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3045122.stm http://india_resource.tripod.com/kashmir.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_370

Kashmiri pandits and sikhs along with Shia and Sunni muslims had been living in kashmir for centuries. Strarting in 1989, Pakistan sponsored terriost and kashmiri muslims started brutally killing minority pandits and sikhs. 6% Minority non-muslim population was forced to flee kashmir valley at militant gun point. These minority non-Muslims families (around 15 lack = 15 million ) are now living living as kashmiri migrants in india. http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2000/0403/india.singhpora.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSDEL10361920071022 http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/10/world/kashmir-muslims-kidnap-indian-aide-s-daughter.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSDEL231935 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpandita (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You mention 17% Shia population in Kashmir. I have two questions:
 * What Kashmir? (A) Complete, (B) Jammu & Kashmir or (C) Kashmir Valley?
 * Where do you get this from?
 * I came here with one source already used by you: http://india_resource.tripod.com/kashmir.html (13% of Muslims in Kashmir valley, data published in 1997). So I was delighted to see another number. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity & Neutrality
The article needs to be unbiased as per wikipedia standard. An objective writer should get rid of both the biases:Indian bias as well as Pakistani bias. Kashmir is a disputed territorry mainly between India & Pakistan and as such we need some neutral contributor here who are not guided by their emotional feeling. This is needed for the sake of objectivity.Murad67 (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Kashmirwatch, 2 November 2010
I want to add an URL related Kashmir Conflict

Kashmirwatch (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you post the link here? Also please make sure it complies with WP:EXTERNAL. Thanks, Stickee (talk)  22:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Highly Biased
There is no reference to the major independence movement going on in Kashmir right now against Indian occupation - yet all the blame is thrown on Pakistani Punjabis in this article - sounds ridiculous to me. Here is the latest NYtimes report (As of Sept 22/ 2010) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/world/asia/22kashmir.html?ref=world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.8.76 (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To me too the article is heavily biased with an anti freedom epitome. Kashmir conflict is a struggle for freedom and self determination. In worst words it can be connoted as secession movement. But a progressive & most secular person like me is also offended and confused while I find the article treats the struggle as Islamic terrorism. Of course the struggling people of Kashmir composed mostly of muslims. But that does not mean we should mark a freedom movement as a terrorist venture.Please call a spade a spade. OK???Unmesh Bangali (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Unmesh Dada, the article is highly biased towards Indian viewpoint because of numerical strength of the Indian origin editors here in Wikipedia. See, unlike you one biased Indian Editor by name UplinkAnsh on 2nd November has just deleted your entire edit containing Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy's standing on Kashmir Conflict favouring the kashmiris movement without any apparent logic. People like him may be educated but not at all wise.God bless wikipedia from them.Naved77 (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.111.189.98, 11 November 2010
The 1971 war is not mentioned in the introduction: "India and Pakistan have fought at least three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965 and 1999. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several skirmishes over the Siachen Glacier."

"India and Pakistan have fought at least three wars over Kashmir, including the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999. India and Pakistan have also been involved in several skirmishes over the Siachen Glacier."

98.111.189.98 (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Considering that the war in 1971 is considered one of the shortest wars in modern history (lasting just 13 days according to our own article), I'm not sure it is notable enough to be included in the lead. However, just adding one year to a list shouldn't be too controversial, especially if it's referencing a very relevant conflict.  elektrik SHOOS  01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this. 1971 war had nothing to do with Kashmir conflict. Shovon (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Consequences of Militancy of 1989
The rise of militancy in the Valley of Kashmir and its adjoining areas since 1988 led to politico-ethnic divide between the two major communities inhabiting the Valley. Its immediate and a major consequence has been the migration of more than 55,000 families, which mostly comprised of minority Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) to Jammu and other parts of the country. Out to these migrant families 21,199 are living outside J&K State while 34,105 have sought shelter in Jammu division. This is the greatest displacement of persons in the history of India after its partition in 1947'.(MIGRATION AND SOCIETY, Dr R K Kaul, Rawat Publications, New Delhi (2006)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.245.102 (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Consequences of Militancy of 1989
The rise of militancy in the Valley of Kashmir and its adjoining areas since 1988 led to politico-ethnic divide between the two major communities inhabiting the Valley. Its immediate and a major consequence has been the migration of more than 55,000 families, which mostly comprised of minority Kashmiri Pandits (Hindus) to Jammu and other parts of the country. Out to these migrant families 21,199 are living outside J&K State while 34,105 have sought shelter in Jammu division. This is the greatest displacement of persons in the history of India after its partition in 1947'.(MIGRATION AND SOCIETY, Dr R K Kaul, Rawat Publications, New Delhi (2006)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.245.102 (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan Opinion Citation

 * "Pakistan says that Kashmir is a disputed territory whose final status must be determined by the people of Kashmir."

Can we get a citation for this, please?

MaxyDawg (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Accession Document
I am having some problems with the Accession Document link in External Links section. Please try to resolve the problem.

(Rameez pp (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I have replaced this broken link with one I found at www.jammu-kashmir.com. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * you can read the document at History of Kashmir--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edits
I have again removed your edits to the article. You cannot say things like "the Pakistanis conveniently forget" as this type of wording does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. That type of wording takes a side in the issue, rather than supplying the information in a neutral way and letting the reader make up their own mind. The second reason for the reversion is you are saying that "the most popular, National Conference, was also in favour of acceding to India". The source you provided does not back up the claim that the National Conference was the most popular, and does not say they were in favour of acceding to India, at least not in the quotation your provided. The quotation you provided does not mention the National Conference at all. If the material appears elsewhere in the book, please provide the page number where you found it. That will allow other readers to confirm that the information is actually there, in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Thank you. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now provided a reference - please read the first sentence of the last paragraph of that reference.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by User:Xxrvdfan1000xx
Hi, I have reverted your edits for the following concerns: Thanks. Shovon (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The picture of the Kashmiri Pandit girl killed by the separatists carries a historical value in the context of the article. Kashmiri Pandits are the single largest group of internally displaced group of people in India, which is a direct consequence of the Kashmmir conflict and the separatist movement which is mainly concentrated in the Valley of Kashmir. This is NOT a propaganda picture by any means and hence must not be removed.
 * 2) I would not like to compare Manmohan Singh with Gilani because it will be childish to do so. However, Mr. Singh never said that he'll give unconditional autonomy to the people of Jammu & Kashmir even if there's a demand by the majority of the people. What he actually said is that Indian Govt. is willing to grant autonomy to the people of J&K within the purview of Indian constitution if there's demand by the majority of the people. Excluding the bold & underlined portion amounts to twisting the cited soure.
 * I've added the bold text, so it should be acceptable now to both of you. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

shovon bro,i agree the pandits have suffered but so have many innocent muslims whose life has been made a hell by security forces that have all the power in their hands,intolerance and hate only leads to more of identity politics and more and more problems and thanks to eraserhead for sorting this out,ur a very mature and awesome guy.Xxrvdfan1000xx (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How does anything justify ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits? It is inhuman to ignore human rights of Kashmiri Pandits. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  13:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Photograph of dead child
I assume every major conflict in world history has abominably led to the murder of innocent children on the part of all involved parties. However, these images are highly disturbing. Unless the focus of the conflict was murdering children or the article is specifically covering such an incident, I suggest that these images are either displayed optionally (not directly possible with the current software), removed as inflammatory, or that a warning be placed at the top of the article. If a child would like to learn about the conflict in Kashmir, must he or she be subjected to such disturbing imagery? One may say that such images realistically demonstrate the cost of war; however, they may also provoke further violence, particularly in an ongoing struggle. I view them as further victimizing the innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.40.88 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the picture because it is impossible to verify that it shows what the caption says it shows. --rgpk (comment) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture is from wandhama Massacre. Another reference - here, here.
 * [| List] of people who were killed at Wandhama. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर &#124; असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..  Humour Thisthat2011  20:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The photo is quite disturbing. For some reason, it was re-inserted again without prior discussion here. I have removed it for now. Mar4d (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of edits, agian
I have again removed your edits to the article, and for exactly the same reasons as last time: you cannot say things like "the Pakistanis conveniently forget" as this type of wording does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. That type of wording takes a side in the issue, rather than supplying the information in a neutral way and letting the reader make up their own mind. The second reason for the reversion is you are saying that "the most popular, National Conference, was also in favour of acceding to India". The source you provided does not back up the claim that the National Conference was the most popular, and does not say they were in favour of acceding to India, at least not in the quotation your provided. The quotation you provided does not mention the National Conference at all. If the material appears elsewhere in the book, please provide the page number where you found it. That will allow other readers to confirm that the information is actually there, in keeping with Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Thank you. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The former sentence may certainly be objectionable, but the latter is true and has references (please see the first sentence of the last paragraph of ref#64), which I've provided and so I request you to let it remain.-VonBismarck (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The present wording is acceptable, except the phrase "most popular". That does not appear in the quoted source. Thank you for taking the time to edit your addition to meet the needs of Wikipedia. -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 64 mentions that it was popular, please see the first sentence of the last paragraph of ref#64.-VonBismarck (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It says it was "the largest popular organization", not that it was the most popular. Why don't you put that it was "the largest political party"? That is closely supported by the ref. -- Diannaa (Talk) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * JKNC was the most popular ( and largest) political party and was in favor of acceding to India at that time. With a few hiccups it maintains that position even today. For those of you who want some more info on what happened those days please read Constituent assembly of Jammu and Kashmir.  any party which could win 75/75 seats in an election deserves to be called popular.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess the consensus it to include it then. -- Diannaa (Talk) 00:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947
"The Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite, but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir, thus violating the conditions for holding the plebiscite. The Indian Government wanted Pakistan to remove its forces as per the resolution, before any plebiscite. Moreover the regular elections in Kashmir affirmed the state's status as part of India. " The phrase is given in the cited link. and the Phrase has been presented here after slight changes in tense and not simply copy pasted. dBigXray 20:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the source also states the following: "but in the 1950s, the indian government distanced itself from its commitment to hold a plebiscite", under the section named "plebiscite abandoned", a fact you keep removing from the article along with other sourced content. i suggest you read before making ludicrous false allegations.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * user dBigXray/deepshraj deleted my comment (!) demonstrating that he's not interested in any discussion, hence confirming my suspicion that he's a pov-pushing spa.-- mustihussain (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I had not deleted your comments. perhaps both of us were editing at the same time this talk page hence the conflicting changes were not produced . even my comments got stuck . The meaning of the content in the unbiased version by Wikireader1 is the same as that posted in the cited link.mustihussain is presenting the Pakistani viewpoint on the issue, dBigXray 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * you're a liar. wiki records every change made to content. here, see your edit again . no-one has complained about my edits as they respect wp:npov, wp:nor. my edits actually improved the article. instead of making childish accusations i suggest you read before making false claims or go running off to others for help . my edits are "biased"? roflmao. this proves yet again that you're a (newly formed) pov-pushing spa -- mustihussain (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan administered Kashmir
I have reverted back the biased edits by Mustihussain. In the Neutral Literature the area under Pakistan is known as 'Pakistan administered Kashmir', similar to the 'Indian administered Kashmir'. The name Azad(meaning = Free) Kashmir is a misnomer given by the Pakistan Government even though the area comes under direct control by Pakistan, and is not free under any definitions. The Area called Jammu and Kashmir which is the area under Indian Control is referred to as 'Indian administered Kashmir' in neutral literature. So lets keep the article neutral and unbiased. Further classification of 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' into various zones also presents the Pakistani View point on the issue and not the Neutral View point that is present in the Neutral literature. dBigXray 21:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * the so-called "azad" kashmir and gilgit-baltistan are sections under the "pakistan administrated kashmir"-chapter. it's quite obvious that they fall under "pakistan administrated kashmir". it's also obvious that "azad" kashmir is not free as noted by reliable sources in the same section. my edits have infinitely improved the "pakistan administrated kashmir"-chapter by removing brazen examples of wp:or, especially concerning gilgit-baltistan. i have brutally complied to wp:npov...but i'm wasting my time here since you're not interested in improving the article as demonstrated by your blatant deletions of sourced content, and my comments above. -- mustihussain (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What makes You Mustihussain think that you your editings have a wp:npov when in reality you continue removing many lines related to human rights abuses by Pakistan in Pakistan Administered Kashmir, a difference between your version and the unbiased version by Wikireader41 clearly proves this. Its evident that for a Biased wp:pov like yours they are needless. Please do not remove precious unbiased contributions by other users. dBigXray 09:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * are you blind or something? read the section and you'll see that it mentions human rights abuses in kashmir. the topic covers almost the whole section! in addition, the section now complies with wp:nor and wp:npov. the older, unimproved version was not "unbiased" at all, especially regarding gilgit-baltistan. what a joke. -- mustihussain (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * yes you have included some points, agreed but you deleted many lines that were a part of this article. Moreover you are trying defend your actions of deleting the vital lines saying they were unimportant and needless. They are very important and very much needed in order to present a wp:npov of the Article. Using the Term "AZAD KASHMIR" for a region of Pakistan Administered Kashmir is itself a BIASED wp:pov . The earlier structure having a description of both the regions is more apt and better than your Biased version. By the way do you know where Muzaffarabad is ? check it . clearly shows your knowledge . dBigXray 09:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * mother of god! "azad kashmir" is a section under "pakistan administrated kashmir"-chapter. biased my foot. what is needed however is a lead to this chapter, explaining the term. the "many" lines you are referring to: some sentences were from unreliable dead links, other where half-baked original statements. however, i left in an unsupported sentence, criticizing pakistan, even though it should have been removed. if you want to improve the section then use wp:rs. however, i doubt that you're able to be constructive. ps: i don't need to know where muzaffarabad is. i just use what is written in the sources. how dense can you get?  this also shows your ignorance about wikipedia, and it displays the fact that you actually don't read the sources! it's clear that you're being disingenuous (i caught you lying red handed above), and your attempt to canvassing others have failed miserably  -- mustihussain (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Both of you, please stop this edit war. dBigXray, you just revered my edits which had nothing to do with the edits of  mustihussain. The text of this article before his edits seemed to be full of point-of-view wordings. His edits have improved the text, but even now the text is not perfect in concerns of POV. Please don't revert those edits without discussing each one of the changes here. --Johanneswilm (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now gone through this particular section. It seems to me that the POV is gone, at least in relation to the works cited. Please don't revert before discussing any further, both of you. Other sections of the article would likely still need to be investigated for POV. --Johanneswilm (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Added some of the missing citations and the contents associated that were previously removed by other users as the Links of 'the Dawn' newspaper were dead.I have also removed a repeated content ", although many of the Gilgit-Baltistanis want their area to be merged into Pakistan and declared a separate province" repeated in para 1 and para 3 of this subsection.dBigXray 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i removed the statements of two miniscule groups from the section. totally undue. in addition, the section concerns human right violations and not the aspirations of fringe ten-man groups. no statements from such anti-indian groups are given in section 3.1... suggest you keep the wp:npov.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * i agree that this section concerns human rights violations and not political aspirations. hence removing the lines concerning political aspirations is a better move. but the Ethnic demography of the region which leads to sectarian violence and furthur violations of human rights cannot be ignored and removed moreover the cited links provide more related info. hence allow them to be a part of the article. also the same section mentions later that "The rise of sectarian extremism is an alarming consequence of this denial of basic political rights" so a short description is relevant to the section. dBigXray 08:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * User Deepeshraj (dBigXRay), when user Mustihussain reverted you, it meant there was no consensus, and you needed to obtain one on the talk-page. Instead, you inserted your edits again. This constitutes edit warring. You removed all sentences about the existence of the demand of Gilgit-Baltistans to join Pakistan. This is POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Please discuss here. --Johanneswilm (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * firstly, deepeshraj or dbigxray is being, yet again, disingenuous. he first reverted a sentence about gilgit-baltistani's demand of joining pakistan under the pretext that this was already mentioned in another sentence...he then proceeds with removing the other sentence as well! inconvenient fact eh? secondly, he claimed that he would remove the political aspirations of the fringe groups he loves so much, and yet, failed to do so! what deepeshraj is fails to comprehend is that such disruptive editing will completely destroy this article. deepeshraj is a disruptive pov-pusher and is unable to understand the concept of collaboration and consensus. wp:brd requires discussion and consensus.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Plebiscite proposals accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government.
The article says "To this end, UN arbitrators put forward 11 different proposals for the demilitarization of the region. All of these were accepted by Pakistan, but rejected by the Indian government."

If you look at the source TIME, it quotes the Pakistani Foreign Minister Malik Firoz Khan Noon.


 * "Pakistan, Noon declared, was anxious to see a U.N.-organized plebiscite policed by U.N. troops, but India had repeatedly blocked plebiscite proposals "by insisting on some new condition or raising irrelevant issues." Since 1949, noted Noon, "eleven proposals for settling the differences [have been] put forward. Pakistan accepted each; India rejected every one."

The current text in the article gives the impression that India rejected the proposals without any reason. It should be mentioned that India rejected the proposals by insisting on new conditions or raising other issues. 203.99.208.4 (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't do this as a simple "Change X to Y" edit request, sorry; please understand I can only process simple requests. For issues like this, please discuss it here, show consensus to change it, and re-request when that is available - giving details of exactly what should be changed. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 01:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with user User:Chzz, the above claim is incomplete, I would encourage user 203.99.208.4 (talk) to review again the scenario with a neutral state of mind. The UN Resolution that the above user is talking of also says that Pakistan must vacate the part of Kashmir that it is occupying, but pakistan has never agreed to it. It has been blocked not because india has rejected it but because PAkistan is not ready to accept the pre conditions for the Resolution.Its wrongly argued that India has insisted on new conditions or raised irrelevant issues. It has always said for a free and fair plebiscite Pakistan needs to demilitarise the Gilgit-Baltistan and Pak Administered Kashmir, and the millions of Kashmiri including KAshmiri Pandits who were displaced from their own homeland by extremists be allowed, only then an can the conditions will improve.-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than your first line, there was no input about the article but the issue of Kashmir. You should keep into account that this is not a forum but a place to discuss for improvement of the article. We're not here to solve or give solutions for the Kashmir issue but to discuss what all is significant enough to be added here. I don't see how it will help improve the article by talking about implementing a resolution which is seen as obsolete by Pakistan, India and third parties. If there's something any of the parties claim and is notable enough, it goes in the article (practically possible to be implemented or not). --lTopGunl (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Indian Administrated Kashmir
Have added the casualties of Muslims and exact number of dead pandits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basitbanday (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Questionable source
This particular reference seems to be a clearly biased and one-sided view, and is filled with several mistakes, eg; saying that Kashmir was acceded to Pakistan instead of India (while the region maybe in question, the fact of accession is not) and calling Gulab Singh "Golab Singh", not mentioning the incursion from Pakistan into Kashmir in 1947, etc... is this a credible source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiraj121 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request, 13December 2010
Concerned about the addition of this "Kashmir Watch website" which in reality is really biased in its coverage tending to a heavily pro-Pakistani establishment bias, it has no information on PoK adminstration structures but heavily denigrates that of a democratically elected government in (Indian) Kashmir E.G.:- http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines.php?subaction=showfull&id=1291869164&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&var0news=value0news http://www.kashmirwatch.com/showheadlines.php?subaction=showfull&id=1291979396&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&var0news=value0news More can be given....

—Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy right problem
I just reverted back to here as Mechdoc and copied and pasted content from Here Darkness Shines (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit - Human rights abuse
Elaborated on the magnitude human rights violations during the conflict in Kashmir valley.Mechdoc (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
The statement in human right abuses "400,000 Kashmiri Hindus have either been murdered or displaced" is ambiguous and lacks clearness, and there is no citation for the statement. Reports from government have indicated the number of kashmiri pandits killed is 219 and nearly 1,40,000 had migrated. The number of dead from local pandit organisation Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti is 399. Truth4all (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be much useful if you can provide reliable Source to prove the numbers that you are claiming are true.-- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  08:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually they have not simply migrated, it is a case of ethnic cleansing. I shall add the source for this later. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources are provided as Reports from government have indicated the number of kashmiri pandits killed is 219 and nearly 1,40,000 had migrated. The number of dead from local pandit organisation Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti is 399Truth4all (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

POV in reference
A reference recently added by Truth4all is an opinion article in New York Times with a heavy POV/not covering argument from both sides. Is such a reference valid? Requesting comments. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is a junk source. Op-Eds cannot be used for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed. Anir1uph (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Poll on Kashmiri sentiments
This poll on Kashmiri sentiments by a London think tank should be incorporated somewhere in this article. Joyson Prabhu  Holla at me!   19:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.smh.com.au/world/kashmiris-divided-about-territorys-future-20100530-wnji.html

Al-Qaeda section
An IP made this edit, which Anir1uph reverted. I have reverted back to the IP edit as the source states "He also ruled out Al Qaeda's relations with Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). "The Army has ruled out the presence of Al Qaeda in Jammu and Kashmir, saying nothing had been established so far to corroborate reports of the terror group's operations in the State. We are only aware of Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan," he maintained. "In Pakistan, Al Qaeda trains and assists LeT, JeM cadres in operations against the government." Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You replaced the text "He stated that Al-Qaeda had strong ties with the Kashmir militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Pakistan." with "He stated that Al-Qaeda had no ties with the Kashmir militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in Pakistan.". You did that when you have yourself quoted the source above as saying that "We are only aware of Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan," he maintained". Can you explain this? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugger, I just reread it. Sorry, my mistake I have self reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! happens to the best of us. :D Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
This edit is factually incorrect, the cause was not rebels revolting it was an invasion by Pakistan, how many articles must this be pointed out on? It is also incorrect in that it says "Pakistani troops cross over the LOC into occupied Kashmir and take over vital peaks in Kargil." I feel quite certain there were no LOC in 1947, not was Kashmir "occupied" by anyone at the time. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   16:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

IP addition
Is most certainly undue for this article, however it would go well into Human rights abuses in Kashmir Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Also the last statement "His extradition order was never pursued by the Indian government, showing complicity of the government in systemic abuses in Kashmir." seems WP:OR, as i am unable to find such a claim in the cited article. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This edit about a single person is clearly WP:UNDUE for this article, I have already discussed it with the IP on my talk page where i told him to get consensus first and the IP ignoring my advice chose to add it back, with a threatening edit summary.-- DBig X<font color="#10AD00">ray  19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "His extradition order was never pursued by the Indian government, showing complicity of the government in systemic abuses in Kashmir." ——who says? I wholly agree with DBX and Anir1uph here, that article is about conflicts in Kashmir the biased edits are a violation of WP:UNDUE, like Darkness Shines commented in his edit summary while reverting your latest unhelpful edit (bordering on WP:DISRUPT), "Discussing the actions of one man is most certainly undue, sorry". See, WP:NPOV. <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   08:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Indian administered Kashmir
This article needs a heck of a work. And this section is filled with biased claims back and forth. The words and phrases like <ul><li>"unlawful detention", <li>"draconian law", <li>"fake encounters" <li>"enforced disappearances", etc</ul> should not be used in wikipedia's voice (as overt claims). These words, while looking at an extremely serious issue through an over-simplistic lens, malign and impugn a whole organization and people who dedicate their lives to national security. Kashmir conflict is an issue of national concern for India and probably has ripple effects on Pakistani politics also. So editors must choose their words carefully. Some lofty assertions in this article, when taken collectively, constitute a gross violation of WP:NPOV. <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   10:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * interesting that you see these assertions only the Indian controlled Kashmir section and not the Pakistan controlled. Neutrality? Right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.61.59 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tell me what I missed then and please assume good faith. <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   10:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * these are well sourced, cited and informations, without particularly belonging to one point of view. the user can make their judgements based on this. your statement "malign and impugn a whole organization and people who dedicate their lives to national security" clearly shows emotions. There have been (and exist) tyrannical regimes where "official national security" agencies have committed human rights abuses and we see that in the recent Middle East conflicts. So, just because your emotions tend to support the defense entity in India, doesn't mean these are disputed.63.87.61.59 (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everything on the internet is a good source for everything. It's not necessary that whatever that is on the net would be a greatly reliable source. Solid blanket statements like "unlawful detention" or "fake encounters" or "massacre" would inevitably need a very reliable source (Intergovernmental Investigatory reports / warnings would be ideal or at least reports of national importance / significance). The bigger the claim, the better the source required. HRW or other Human rights organization simply don't have that much credibility when they start doubting the motives of security forces without that much evidence or thorough investigation, you need something more solid than that. A simple body-count don't prove anything. <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   09:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mrt you hypocrisy is amazing you add pov words like "pok" from indian sources and you dont like words from the BBC? which clearly state fake encounters as being fake from this I can gauge your strong pov pushing edits are causing more trouble than helping Opinedsenior (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian governmental agency CBI called the killing of innocent civilians framed by Indian army for the Pathribal killings as cold-blooded murder and fake encounter. Reliable resources dont seem to cut your 'credibility' test, yet your own edits are far from reliable. Consider yourself warned.98.225.186.174 (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Read Fallacy of quoting out of context The report you're referring to is produced below,

You forgot to mention the rest of the report which you cited in the wikipedia article Kashmir conflict. You only wrote "In a report from the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI), it was reported that the five people accused of the Pathribal killings at the time of US President Bill Clinton's visit who were killed by the Indian military, were in fact innocent locals". '''Where does it say that these victims were "innocent locals"? huh?''' <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   11:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Update The Army has decided to take over the investigations and try its officers in the Pathribal fake encounter, in which seven people were killed in an alleged staged shootout 12 years ago.


 * The Army has filed an application before Chief Judicial Magistrate in Srinagar requesting him to hand over the case so that five of its accused personnel are tried under the Army Act.


 * The Supreme Court had asked the Army authorities in May to decide whether its personnel accused of fake encounter killings should be tried by court-martial proceedings or by regular criminal courts.


 * CBI had earlier moved an application for vacating the stay granted by the Supreme Court on the trial relating to the killings of 7 persons allegedly by the Army in retaliation to the killing of 36 civilians [sikhs] by militants at Chattisingpora in 2000. <font face="verdana"  color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * you are clearly pushing an agenda here. Read the Pathribal DNA cover-up section of Pathribal and you will see in the references that they were indeed innocent local civilians. The cover up also indicates complicity of the government in the systemic human rights violations. In addition, you mentioned that such claims are derogatory to people dedicated to national security, yet you very conveniently added similar or even more blatant attacks on the security forces of other side. You are abusing your right to edit Wikipedia and trying to further an agenda here. 12.54.94.22 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * “you are clearly pushing an agenda here.” - no I am not pushing any "agenda" here. You might want to visit the page called assume good faith. Frankly, I don't like your tone. <li>“In addition, you mentioned that such claims are derogatory to people dedicated to national security” - Yes of course they are, especially when the investigation is still on. Plus, there were only five personnel involved (and there were truly ‘extenuating circumstances’ according to the stance of Additional Solicitor General), then why should the entire security force be denigrated because of that, and that too when the Indian Army has been kind enough to try those alleged officers?<li>“you will see in the references that they were indeed innocent local civilians.” - I am not, even for a moment, saying that they could not have been civilians. But the "innocent" part from Wikipedia's voice would be a tad too much. How can CBI possibly know that they were innocents? In that highly disturbed state, real innocence is pretty rare. Like I said the investigation is going on and there could have been some unknown extenuating aspects. <li>“yet you very conveniently added similar or even more blatant attacks” - I didn't point to any individual or that sort of cases. If I had done so, then there would not have been enough space left for anything else in this article. Besides, didn't I provide a source which is used to malign Indian authorities too? Why should that be used only to question the integrity of one side? Doesn't it explicitly state that all those crimes happened under the aegis of Inter-Services Intelligence and that all of them were involved in the systematic torture on the other-side? <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not, even for a moment, saying that they could not have been civilians. But the "innocent" part from Wikipedia's voice would be a tad too much. How can CBI possibly know that they were innocents? In that highly disturbed state, real innocence is pretty rare. -- 98.225.186.174 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They were innocent locals, to say they were not.... Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And here is a reference for that fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you quote the passage you're referring to? My net connection is slow and I do not have that book with me. <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   09:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you assume good faith, "Fresh samples were collected(DNA) in April 2002, which, upon testing, conclusively proved that the victims were innocent local civilians killed in a fake encounter, and not foreign militants as was claimed for the past two years" Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I admit it says so. But what I am asking is that how can they know "conclusively" after that much time if these victims had malignant motives or not. Yes, I admit they could have been civilians. But innocent? How can it not be the POV of the author? Post mortem reports can show the identity, yes, but how can they conclusively prove innocence or what their real intent was at the time of their death? IMO, it can't. Isn't it why the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 was passed and enforced there in the first place? <font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   15:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * your logic is invalid. disturbed area or no disturbed area, someone is considered innocent if they are innocent of the crime that they have been accused of. If someone is accused of murder which they never committed, calling them innocent is not POV because they, as kids, might have stolen someone's candy at some point and thus are not completely innocent. The fact is that these civilians were killed, framed as foreigners on the Kashmir soil, buried in haste and their DNA tampered with once investigations started. It was proven beyond doubt that they were in fact local civilians and not foreigners and the killings were actually murder. 63.87.61.60 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, of course I know that, you have perhaps misunderstood my point. I was simply saying what you're saying now.

I too think that someone (by the way, that doesn't exclude the men of Indian-army mind it) should be considered completely innocent until they have been irrefutably proven guilty of the crime that they have been accused of committing. But the fact is that the investigation is still going on. Nobody yet knows for sure if these, so called "victims" were there with malevolent intent or not. In short nobody knows if The personnel of Indian-army killed those people gratuitously or were there any extenuating circumstances (like these "victims" have been killed in a preemptive attack by Indian Military, or that these "victims" were going to cause injury to other civilians or the soldiers or anything in those lines which you and I don't know yet). Like I said, Both sides could be proven innocent from this juncture. Nobody has proved yet that the DNA was “tampered with” by the soldiers of Indian army.
 * 1) Victims Indian citizens —— may be.
 * 2) Innocence —— investigation still on.

“It was proven beyond doubt” - ! Only allegations have been raised beyond doubt and, as of now, nothing more than inferential and circumstantial evidence has been provided, other than that it's hard to distinguish facts from hypotheses. Thank you.

<font face="verdana" color="#0000FF">Mrt3366  <font face="century gothic" size="1" color="#0000A0">(Talk?)   06:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC) - References: