Talk:Pakistan-occupied Kashmir

Incorrect redirect
There is now increasing use of the term PoK to refer to Gilgit-Baltistan, e.g.,
 * Pakistan Occupying PoK, Gilgit-Baltistan Forcefully, Rights Abuses Escalating, US Told, NDTV News, 18 May 2016.

The redirect to Azad Kashmir that you had installed is incorrect. What would you like to do about this? I never really understood your rationale for the last revert you did here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The NPOV terms for Pok/IoK etc are Pakistan-administered Kashmir (which was once incorrectly a DAB in a way you mention - if there was ever to be a DAB, this target would be most neutral with all others redirecting here), and Indian-administered Kashmir respectively. The terms for Indian side of Kashmir redirect to Jammu and Kashmir while the redirect for the term for Pakistani side of kashmir was decided upon here and here (plus any linked discussions in those archives) from what I remember. Generally all other redirects would point to Pakistan-administered Kashmir (that being the neutral one), eventually all double redirects go to the final target of P-aK. Disambiguations are for terms that have more than one meanings, not for terms that comprise more than one entities (see the difference). Me even users with no real involvement in this specific topic area discussed this to great length at the linked discussion / archives. Azad Kashmir was the name of the entity that comprised the complete region until 1979 (I'm a bit rusty but I think that's the year) when Pakistan separated "Northern Areas" (later GB) from AJK and converted the its part of the Kashmir into two entities (India objected but obviously what happened, happened). That is also the reason that the redirect should be to Azad Kashmir and not to GB as Azad Kashmir is the right article to describe its undivided timespan as a part of Pakistan (or while in Pakistan's administration - however you would like to state it). Nothing needs to change. I'm a bit busy so I hope this makes sense to you as I really don't want to get dragged into old disputes, much less resolved ones. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the correct DAB to fine tune though, as Kashmir is the generic term used for all in combination as well as alone and the historical region. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I didn't understand everything you said. But are you ok with having a DAB page titled Pakistan-administered Kashmir? That will be fine by me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears you didn't read through the archives I linked. I would generally have been ok with a DAB at Pakistan-administered Kashmir from POV perspective, but I am not ok with from a DAB concept perspective. That's the reason that DAB was changed to a redirect in first place. You need to look at the archives. I would quote another user from the archive:
 * "The very fact that you are able to articulate how the name refers to the changing status of a single geographic region over time demonstrates that it is capable of being discussed as a single evolving concept. That is not ambiguity; all regions experience that kind of change over a long enough time. The distinction between Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) and Mercury (car), now that is ambiguity. Talk page consensus can not make this material appropriate for disambiguation any more than talk page consensus can make this page a featured article."
 * You need to understand that P-aK does not cater to the definition of a disambiguation because it is not an ambiguity, rather simply another name of Azad Kashmir.... which was later divided into the current Azad Kashmir and GB. The fact that India refers to both regions as PoK is acknowledged by the POV redirect of PoK to AJK (redirects of all POVs are encouraged to be redirected to the actual, neutral, articles). -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are losing me. The equation PaK = Azad Kashmir is not a correct equation, as per the source I provided. I can provide tons of others. What is the solution? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can not redirect this to two articles at a time obviously and as I explained, it is not a DAB candidate.. no matter what you say, it can not be a DAB as per above. As per the GB article, AJK & GB were a single unit once. Maybe we can create Azad Kashmir (1947-year of division) and redirect these terms to that but that article wouldn't be due unless AJK grows too long. AJK is the only candidate (once) being the right term for the combined P-aK as well as one of the current areas. India also refers to AJK as PoK and I can provide tons of refs for that too. Creating a dab is not a solution. You can simply mention this in the Kashmir conflict page how the term is used for both parts of Pakistani kashmir. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm not really a good history (or semantics) teacher. You'll have to learn the history and the meaning of a disambiguation on your own - though I've tried to explain as simply as I can. It can't be a DAB for sure. Redirect is the only other solution... I don't mind if you redirect it to GB instead but AJK is a better target IMO - maybe redirect to Kashmir conflict if you think current target is confusing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway, there is already consensus, facts, an RFC and what not on making it redirect (if you go through the linked archives). This debate is moot. I'm going to go make better use of my time... so should you, it's nothing huge and not even of any value. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)