Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Need changes in main article

{editsemiprotected} Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK) refers to part of Kashmir, which was liberated in an armed struggle of the Freedom Fighters of Kashmir, along with the help of Tribals from Northern Pakistan, when India Invaded Kashmir and forcefully declared Kashmir a part of it. People of Kashmir objected this Indian move and committed to armed struggle against Indian Occupancy. Pakistan's Governor General, Mr. Jinnah ordered Pakistan Army to move forward and counter the Indian attack. But an English General of Pakistan Army refused to obey orders of Mr. Jinnah. PAK borders the Pakistani Punjab and North-West Frontier provinces (NWFP) to the west, the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to the north west, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of People's Republic of China to the north and Indian-administered Kashmir, also referred to as Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK), to the east.

A part of this area of the former princely state of Kashmir, the trans-Karakoram tract was ceded to China and the remaining area was amalgamated into two regions Northern Areas and the Azad Kashmir. India refers to this region as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (or PoK).[1] Most international agencies such as the United Nations[2] MSF [3] and the Red Cross[4] refer to this region as Pakistan Administered Kashmir(PAK). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakfirst (talk • contribs) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Administered Kashmir (PAK) Vs Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)

PAK is infact not administered by Pakistan, though it has special status in the constitution of Pakistan. While on the other hand IOK is forcefully made part of India, despite the fact that it was India, who rushed to UNSC for ceasefire. Moreover, Pakistan never sends its military in Kashmir. Because, an English general of Pakistan Army had refused to obey orders of Pakistan's founding Governor General, Mr. Jinnah. Those, who fought against illegal occupation of Indian army, were wholly Kashmiri Freedom Fighters. Tribals from northern areas of Pakistan also helped them to kick out Indian army. But UNO sectioned ceasefire to India and set the rules of games too. But India never fulfils its promises. Many Indian leaders, including nehru repeatedly promised with the people of Kashmir, the right of self-determination. But they never fulfilled their promises.

India Army, from last 60 years are repeatedly found in crimes, which include extra judicial killings, rape and murder of Kashmiri women, killing of Kashmiri youth. While, on the other side of the cease-fire line, not even a single case of murder, rape or kill had ever been registered against Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army had never faced any Anti-Pakistan sentiments and agitations in PAK. While this is daily routine in IOK.

Even in Simla Agreement, India acknowledges a Kashmir a dispute to be resolved between India and Pakistan and according to the wishes of People of Kashmir. Former Indian PM, while on the visit to Pakistan, also expressed the same. But India seems not interested to solve this dispute according to the wishes of People of Kashmir.

There are hundreds of reasons of calling IOK as Indian Occupied Kashmir. It is India which has stationed more than 6 hundred thousands army in Kashmir and using all illegal and un-ethical ways to kill the dreams of people of Kashmir and make them permanent slaves of Hindutva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakfirst (talk • contribs) 22:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

While, on the other side of the cease-fire line, not even a single case of murder, rape or kill had ever been registered against Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army had never faced any Anti-Pakistan sentiments and agitations in PAK.

Is that so? Is a lack of cases against the army being recorded a proof of lack of atrocities in an army which has a country? A virtual media blackout is not the same as well being. Actually, if there was well being, Pakistan would be jumping to publicize it. http://videos.sify.com/Kashmiris-in-PoK-Observe-October-22-as-Black-Day-ANI-watch-jldvudajbhi.html http://videos.sify.com/Press-freedom-deteriorates-in-Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir-ANI-watch-jmwoOdiefef.html http://videos.sify.com/Rising-protest-against-Pakistan39s-plans-to-make-Gilgit-its-fifth-province-ANI-watch-jmpoaegbhcj.html http://videos.sify.com/Women-in-Gilgit-Protest-Atrocities-of-Pakistani-Army-ANI-watch-kcqnOchiadd.html

There are plenty more, I just grabbed a handy few. The "facts" being used in this segment are propaganda. Not NPOV.

The map describes PoK as "Kashmiri" part of "Pakistan", which is the covert agenda, but not yet accepted by the world. Azad Kashmir is supposedly independent, though its rulers are appointed by Pakistan and forced to pledge loyalty. Still, Pakistan does pay lip service to their independence, so the term is utterly incorrect, even by Pakistani standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.13.226 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

separate page?

I don't know if there must be a separate page for this as it is essentially a kinda multiple redirect to Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas. -- Paddu 21:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POK

In fact Pakistan occupied Kashmir should be the main banner under which the various parts of Kashmir subdivided by Pakistan need to be discussed. All other parts that have been created by Paksitan out of POK, are strictly to deflect discussion on the status of various parts afforded by it, as these are different. Given that Pakistan DID occupy Kashmir through an invasion, calling POK an Indian name is not NPOV as this flies against the fact of invasion. While the Pakistanis don't have a legal signed documented claim on Kashmir, India does by way of the Instrument of Accession, signed by Kashmir and Lord Mountbatten, a British citizen, on behalf of India. Let the description reflect what it truly is, an occupation, without calling it an Indian term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.231.116 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

well in that case we can call Junagradh as INdian OCCUPIED JUnagarh, as it acceded to Pakistan, only to be force fully occupied by indian army. Mountbatton from 15th august 1947 onwards was Governor General of Dominion of India, so he had a clash of interest in dealing with the kashmir issue Hence his actions could hardly stand as a justifaction on the issue. Lastly if the instrument of accession is valid, then why did India go to the UN asking for a solution. It was not Pakistan that took the issue to UN but India --Hussain (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) I don't understand why indians are giving this false name "pok" to Azad Kashmir of Pakistan the word "Azad" means in "free" in Urdu. Azad Kashmir is a free Kashmiri Land from Indian Occupation Forces and most important thing you should Keep in your mind is that Gilgit-Baltistan is Part of Pakistan and 5th province, it was NEVER a part of iok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.67.7 (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

More points in the article for NPOV

1. The article does not mention the reasons for Pakistan dividing the part of Kashmir occupied them. This facet of political action by Pakistan needs to be addressed. Particularly the fact that it tries to delink the Northern Areas from the overall Kashmir discussion. This combined with its gift of Kashmiri land to China so as to gain political and military support.

2. There are several constituent peoples that form part of this division, who are different from the rest of Pakistan. Most areas are completely Shia and Ismaili followers as against the predominant Sunni followers in the rest of Pakistan. Given Pakistan's history of sectarian violence this is a facet that cannot avoid mention, particularly when the Sunnis try and exert their influence increasingly in these Shia areas.

3. Besides, the people of POK have limited freedoms compared to the rest of the people of Pakistan, ( a direct contrast to India ) this too because of the substantial Pakistani military presence here. There is no democracy, and the area as such is practically under army law, a clear human rights situation.

4. This area has been the hotbed of terrorism practiced on India by militants who get trained in Pakistan camps across this area. There is enough evidence on this and as such has been acknowledged by Pakistani authorities in power. This characteristic of the region needs to be captured in a world suffering under terrorist militancy. This particularly being the reason why the Indian army build up in Indian controlled Kashmir is high and when the terrorist militancy is the cause of deaths of numerous civilians, security forces, government establishments and infrastructure. This is the CAUSE to the effect that is felt in India which is captured by the article on Kashmir in Wiki. The CAUSE arising out of Pakistani actions in POK thus needs to be spoken about.

This alone will represent the NPOV given the scope of discussions covered by Wiki under the link Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.231.116 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Article

THIS IS A BIASED ARTICLE WHY DO YOU HAVE "PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR" AND NOT "INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR"? BOTH THESE REGIONS ARE DISPUTED UNDER UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO REFER TO AZAD KASHMIR AS "OCCUPIED" ARE INDIANS. YOU HAVE INDIAN ADMINISTERED KASHMIR BUT PAKISTAN OCCUPIED. THIS IS BIASED AND NOT NEUTRAL! I CHALLENGE EVEN THE INDIANS TO JUSTIFY THIS UNDER ANY INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS. KASHMIR IS A DISPUTED TERRITORY IS RECONGNIZED AS SUCH BY THE ENTIRE WORLD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.208.176 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC) and by 206.208.224.161 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Disputed Article

YOU FREAK, THE WHOLE KASHMIR BELONGS TO INDIA AND NOT PAKISTAN. EXCUSE ME, THE WHOLE KASHMIR DOSEN'T BELONGS TO INDIA BUT IT IS A PART & PROVINCE OF PAKISTAN. J&K (Jammu and Kashmir) is already known iok (Indian occupied Kashmir) in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.163.88 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

wake up from your wet dreams.....--Hussain (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The merger

I don't support the merger since the phrase 'Pakistani occupied kashmir' means both the Northern areas as well as what is called Azad kashmir. Anand Arvind 09:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is a propaganda page at best and is pointless as the Indian Occupied Kashmir page was until you got rid of it I might add. We aren't here to cater to nationalist sentiments and this article is frankly useless as it doesn't say anything that isn's stated on nearly all of the other pages (i.e. both sides don't recognize the other's claims to Kashmir). Tombseye 16:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The title may be propaganda (renamed), but the content is valid and neutral. `'mikka (t) 00:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not rename it 'Pakistani administred Kashmir' instead of Pakistan's part of Kashmir. The later phrase is not used by anybody including Pakistan. Also please mention that India refers to this part as POK. Anand Arvind 00:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already noticed this. `'mikka (t) 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a fair compromise and I see the rationale given the fact that Pakistan has divided up its part of Kashmir into 2 sections and as long as the writing is neutral I think the problem is solved. Good job guys. Cheers. Tombseye 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Then Indian administrated Kashmir article mustr also inclde that Pakistan considers it Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK).

Siddiqui 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not delete the whole history section since it is not just related to the pakistani controlled kashmir and is covered elsewhere. I am in favor of leaving basic info here. Somebody who knows demographics, local culture etc can add those sections. Lets leave all the politics out of this article since it is covered elsewhere. Anand Arvind 08:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief historical summary is always OK. If it is "covered elsewhere" (I don't know where; I am not an expert), then use the {{main}} for reference `'mikka (t) 23:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems is that we probably shouldn't have articles called Indian Occupied Kashmir or Pakistan Occupied Kashmir as those terms just serve as propaganda titles rather than being informative. Both could include references that each side does not acknowledge the other's claims and leave it at that. These problems also show up with the country articles as there are footnotes expressly saying that India claims a border with Afghanistan via Pak. admin. Kashmir. which is just kind of absurd to bring up with one country and not the other. I would simply suggest that both references be removed as the articles on Kashmir pretty much explain the situation and claiming a border isn't the same thing as the actual de facto border anyway. Tombseye 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

the history section seems too simplistic.the maharaja did not "decide to join india"... he was rather "forced to join".. theres hell lot of difference there.. I hope the author makes necssary corrections to make it more authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.19.90 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"learn history and please do come, he was not forced, but was afraid of losing kashmir to pakistan so he wanted help from indan forces to retreat pakistani soldiers, but according to UN, it was illegal to help other state(since J&K was an independant state at that time). so the maharaja of jammu and kashmir agreed merger with india and thus became a part of india. but nearly 1/3rd part of jammu and kashmir got occupied by pakistan, and india announced ceasefire since the rules of UN were exploited(Note:it was india's stupidity to announce ceasefire)and from then on the 1/3rd of kashmir is with pakistan and india is claiming that part of kashmir OCCUPIED BY PAKISTAN." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.12.24 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 27 October 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 Is An Integral Part Of India. Pakistan intruded illegaly into the territory and retails a major chunk of it.What it call Azad Kashmir is nothing more than a pakistani colony on Indian land.

Settlements in this region mostly comprise of military , mercenaries , terrorist organisations.People born in this part of the earth belong to niether of the country.They are non-recognised humans.Pakistan uses thier lives for their propoganda and the hate mission................................................Nitin Singh

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.159.44 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir

Hi Deepak please dont remove Karan Singh from Jammu & Kashmir, he is the would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir, please check history. His father was king he stepped down from throne and he acceded to India like so many Royals did from all the Princly States.

Thanks

08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Atulsnischal

Hi Deepak,

What politician are you talking about, he is the KING of all Jammu & Kashmir for gods sake. Please check the history of the state.

Atulsnischal 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dr Karan Singh The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir

So you mean to say Karan Singh is the would be Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir?! Nevermind, the very purpose of the See also section is to provide links to readers to articles on other topics related to the concerned topic. I just don't understand why would a person who would like to gain some information regarding J&K will go to an article on Karan Singh? Besides, so what if he belongs to a royal family? --Incman|वार्ता 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha.. KING of Jammu and Kashmir.. the last thing I want to know is that India is a monarchy. LOL! --Incman|वार्ता 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.

Thats all, I was just thinking the best for the people of J&K, I am not here to fight with you, please rethink and revert

Best wishes

Atulsnischal 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I know that Mr. Karan Singh has a great personality and is a good man but you have to understand the rules of Wikipedia. Adding a link to Karan Singh defeats the very purpose of the See also section and would result in a decline of Wikipedia's overall credibility. I hope you understand the problem and I would like to express my apologies for my earlier argumentative tone. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, at the same time you must realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not the right mean for all this. --Incman|वार्ता 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Atulsnischal, if you continue with your stubborn attitude, I will have to take up the matter to a Wikipedia administrator or Arbcom. --Incman|वार्ता 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

You seem to be obssed with the Jammu and Kashmir article on Wikipedia, anybody can make it out, you have got stuck and are going on and on about it, you dont respect other peoples viws too, as for me I think there should be a link to Dr Karan Singh's article here, which was just a stub, so I was trying to develop it, thats all, you are playing politics over the whole issue, please think with informational and historical point of view.....

I have also copyed this discussion with you in the Jammu and Kashmir as well as Dr Karan Singh's discussion page, just for the record that Dr Karan Singh article was discussed, as it is a legitimate discussion.

If you get time later please help in developing Dr Karan Singh's article on Wikipedia too.

Just for info only as you seem interested: Latest News on Kashmir topic today: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Thanks Cheers

Atulsnischal 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I am obsessed with the article on J&K. As a matter of fact, a good chunk of that article is written by me (including the History section). And before calling me inconsiderate, look at yourself! Have you analyzed my arguments above in a logical way? You say: "Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state." Hello! This is an encyclopedia. Not a propaganda website. Anyways, I find this discussion a waste of time and unintellectual. So I won't take part in it anymore as I have better things to do. --Incman|वार्ता 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[Karan Singh discussion reposted 12:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC) by 209.197.166.103. — Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 14 September 2008 (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 12:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

History Section

I Have deleted the History Section Completely as it has lot of false information. Please re-write the history with facts with a NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.80.107 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments :-S --Amit 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I've changed some information which had no references at all. I've then added changes in History page using neutral links. Before it seemed there was POV-Pushing going on..as certain parts of the article had no neutral links as references. So they were modified adding HRW links. Which are already being used on this page in Human Rights section.

Fixed spellings of Kabalis...Its pronounced as "Kaba-eelis" not "Kaba-lis" and put in bracket the meaning as "tribesmen" to make it more clear for those who did not knew what it meant.

~~ Phrozenflame —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrozenflame (talk • contribs) 17:08-18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Map description

Somebody had written "Aksai Chin was ceded by Pakistan to China" Under the Map image. I corrected it to "Aksai Chin was annexed by China, the Chinese control being tacitly accepted by Pakistan. Area to the north of Kashmir was ceded by Pakistan to China." --Amit 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

JP Dutta movie?

What's the JP Dutta movie "LOC Kargil" doing in the "See Also" section? I am going to remove it unless somebody objects. Amit 07:53, 6 August 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 Wikipedia: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)

THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE?

It baffles me that this article even exsists why dont we create a seperate indian administered kashmir page and stop picking only on pakistani kashmir well i beleive this is totally unfair 86.151.127.244 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are just one excited person on Wikipedia who sees anti-Pakistani viewpoint in everything. This article covers the Pakistan-administered Kashmir and not just one province of it. It is as simple as that. --Enigma Blues (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And you just cannot accept the fact that this article like so many other indian produced articles are made solely to project your point of veiw first POK now this give me a break i propose a seperate indian administered kashmir page and a indian occupied kashmir page what do you say about that 86.162.67.217 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Is there consensus to merge User:Nichalp/Kashmir with this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

yours is a very good version..but, needs tuning.. consider "adding content" rather than "replacing content" (if you merge)..i must confess that the first two paragraph in intro is actually a merged version of your version and the article's version..i hope you can help in mentioning the constitutional provisions in a toned down BUT ACCURATE manner..Cityvalyu (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections. Pahari Sahib 08:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

constitutional status

i am adding constitutional status section here to deal with pre 1974 and post 1974 status in pakistan..this is not covered in ajk and northern areas topics as SINGLE UNIFIED topic..if there are any non neutral views, please feel free to quote references and alter the words..but i request both indians and pakistanis to allow mention of verifiable sources here..Cityvalyu (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

POV tag on sept14

1. Dispute over lead section

Okay then lets discuss this, why should POV be introduced into the article with no context. Pahari Sahib 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

dispute already sorted in afd discussion..the lead was made after considering all views..Kashmircloud (talk)

That's not quite true, the rather messy AFD was for the POV fork, which resulted it being redirected here (as it used to) I am asking for a 3rd opinion, do not remove the tag until this has been settled.

your version of the article begins

"Pakistan-administered Kashmir (also known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) ) refers to a disputed region between India and Pakistan in South Asia that is under the de facto administration of Pakistan. A part of this area of the former princely state of Kashmir, the trans-Karakoram tract was ceded to China and the remaining area was amalgamated into two regions Northern Areas and the Azad Kashmir . Both nations had a war in 1947 over the former kingdom."

I think it should be changed to

Pakistan-administered Kashmir refers to a disputed region between India and Pakistan in South Asia that is under the de facto administration of Pakistan. A part of this area of the former princely state of Kashmir, the trans-Karakoram tract was ceded to China and the remaining area was amalgamated into two regions Northern Areas and the Azad Kashmir. India refers to this area as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) while Pakistan refers to Indian-administered Kashmir as Indian-occupied Kashmir (IoK). Both nations had a war in 1947 over the former kingdom.

It borders the Pakistani Punjab and North-West Frontier provinces to the west, the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to the north west, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of People's Republic of China to the north and the Indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir ) to the east.

The reason I think it should be changed is because the first version immediately introduces a POV with no context. The second version shows that India and Pakistan both claim each others territory and call it occupied - this is more balanced. Pahari Sahib 23:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• ARGUMENT 1: this article deals about pok (named pak to assuage pakistani sentiments)..not because it is insignificant
• ARGUMENT 2: iok is unnecessary(hence dealt last) since jammu and kashmir state is not dealt here..now by pushing the alternate name down along with iok, you are trying to belittle pok title ALTHOUGH POK IS THE ARTICLE'S CONTENT..
• ARGUMENT 3:note that even pakistan does not use that term pak..
• ARGUMENT 4:why are you raking up a dead issue NOW after being perfectly happy with the previous lead line (till you changed your mind)??Kashmircloud (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not change my mind, I made some minor changes to the article, it did not mean I agreed wholesale with the contents. I was waiting for the fuss to settle down before revisiting the article. I have reverted POV there before as you can see here. Pahari Sahib 23:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

so, you knew all along your proposed move will create a fuss??!! controversial edits need consensus..have you accepted other 3 arguments?Kashmircloud (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What move? Pahari Sahib 00:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"waiting for " : the move you had in your mind ..you have written that controversial edit above ..what about other 3 arguments?.i shall assume that you could not counter that..and hence shall conclude this discussion..take care..Kashmircloud (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion on the lead section

Hi! I've read the article's lead section, I've read the diff above, I've read some of the AfD discussion also. After reading what you guys have written here. I honestly think that the way it reads now, seems to be very neutral. I'd leave it as it is and be done with it. This is obviously a contentious topic for you both, I'd suggest a break fro editing this article for a while: give yourselves a breather? :-) Hope this helps? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

2. delete wrong image

pakistan declaration was made in 1933..but the image under the header is 20 full years older to it (dated 1909)..so it is not "fair use"..shall delete if a valid counter argument is not put forth..Kashmircloud (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

So what if the image was created 20 years before the Pakistan declaration? It helps to give context to the Pakistan declaration , of course that this does not mean you actually have to agree with the declaration. I think your understanding of fair use is a little amiss Pahari Sahib 00:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

please assume good faith..now you say that the 1909 map is not being misused here?? i feel this is nonsense..the map says muslim areas..please know that india is a secular country ..further was the constitution of pakistan territorial limits discussed in 1909?? i dont think so..shall remove if you cant replace it with a 1933 map..(it has got nothing to do with agreeing with the contents of that declaration)Kashmircloud (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the context that's all, I don't know why you think I am not assuming good faith here, I am not insinuating any mischief or illwill from you. Pahari Sahib 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

if that is so, lets forget that..another reason to delete is because sikhs are misrepresented..sikhs form majority in indian part of punjab(hardly mentioned there!!)..so, image is not reliable too..Kashmircloud (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Err this map is pre-partition, the demography of the Punjab has since changed considerably. Pahari Sahib 00:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

but i feel sikhs are being missed out..can you agree that sikhs came out of nowhere(as the map suggests) and suddenly created a sikh majority punjab??.i am unable to agree there... not just sikhs, jammu region has hindus too.. hence not neutral..hence allowing your pov tag to stay on(since image not neutral and not accurate)..Kashmircloud (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Note this map is for prevailing religions (Ferozepore aside) Sikhs were spread out across the Punjab, they were a minority of the population even in the Sikh states e.g. Nabha State. Also I don't think the map has been done at the tehsil level which may give a more sort of patchwork picture. Nonetheless maps like these were printed and published by the British and also had an affect on opinion. Pahari Sahib 01:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

irrespective of that,it is not neutral on more than one account..i can keep listing them ..i dont find what it has got to do here in pok/ pak page..northern areas of pok left out(despite being muslim); bangladesh areas left out(if india/pakistan partition based on religion is assumed although muslims are entitled to equal powers in indian secularism); hindu areas not given the same importance as muslim areas in britsh india map (although quoted on basis of religion); so on..map not accurate ..not neutral..so POV stays..Kashmircloud (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you are entitled to your opinion, it was me who marked the article POV btw .... Pahari Sahib Pahari Sahib (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

your pov contention was disproved with 4 arguments..instead of removing it for disproving your contention and reinserting for the picture's sake, i considered that such a "net zero" result move is useless ..hence, i let you have the pride of inserting the tag that is now relevant only to the picture..Kashmircloud (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have disproved it, lets see what 3rd opinion says. Pahari Sahib 02:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you are entitled to think what you want..but matter of fact is you could not contest the 4 ..i intend to add argument5: editor knew well in advance that his/her edits will be controversial and hence revertedKashmircloud (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I can contest your points, I wanted a 3rd opinion, but since you say I can't .....

1. "this article deals about pok (named pak to assuage pakistani sentiments)..not because it is insignificant". Read NPOV
2. "iok is unnecessary", actually it is necessary to state both competing point of views
3. "note that even pakistan does not use that term pak" Generally Pakistan refers to the two areas separately. But does use PaK. So does the UNHCR and the media.
4. "why are you raking up a dead issue NOW after being perfectly happy with the previous lead line (till you changed your mind" - I wasn't perfectly happy, it wasn't a dead issue

Pahari Sahib 02:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

reply:

1. the pok term is not the sole lead line..pak and pok mentioned in the same breath..so npov not violated..anyway "pak" mentioned ahead of a more popular term (google results-afd) "pok" may be it is biased anti india?? -discussed already in afd discussion.
2. Jammu and Kashmir article has a line saying it is also called as iok..so iok is unnecessary here(POK/p-a-k article)..seems to be put in her as an alibi to push pok down later(see "waited for") ..may be we can weed out "iok" (from p-a-k (pok) article) and "pok" (from "jand k" article) respectively, thus retaining pok and iok at relevant places..
3. since you agree that pakistan does not use pak term, let me say: if neither pakistan nor india use the p-a-k term, why use it merely for assuaging a point of view??!! why push a term that is the only term known to the other side to an insignificant line..
4. well you have edited the same line before(not my version, as you think) without adding POV tag and you did not try to belittle the "pok" title (by pushing it to an irrelevant iok line below) before..that is controversial and lacked consensus from the moment it appeared..

Kashmircloud (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to reply to this in full, note each point I listed stated off quoting yours, point 3 is wrong as I said "Generally Pakistan refers to the two areas separately" and then provided a ref from a government website where PaK is used. Oh the Jammu and Kashmir article mentions the terms "Indian-occupied Kashmir" and "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir". By your logic then this article should list neither. Also virtually all of your edits have lacked consensus, particularly the POV fork you created here and your edits to other articles. I suggest we stop our argument here and await the 3rd opinion. Pahari Sahib 03:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

i guess, you are not taking it in the right spirit. (if you are "not bothered to reply" -that is your choice.i have no comments on that)

• please notice that iok is irrelevant here just as pok is irrelevant at jk page..jammu kashmir is the official term just like the so called "azad" kashmir term..
• if your contention of fork was accepted, then the article would have been deleted..that is not the case..
• i dont need any certificate from a person who did not bother about consensus throughout the history of POK page..other users can check my contributions at kashmir relevant articles where i edited to know the truth example : Amarnath..

so thats it i guess...Kashmircloud (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont change status quo unilaterally

request please remember that this article was earlier titled pakistan occupied kashmir..many users may just type "pok" to learn about it and if you dont mention it as it is , they will be disappointed and even skip this wikipedia source hastily..stop trying to make pok insignificant..develop consensus for such a move to disturb a neutral status quo (that mention the area as pakistan calls it and as india calls it in one go)..for further details refer to afd discussionKashmircloud (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

alternate proposal

can we agree on changing status quo by making the following sentence:

• The terms, "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" and "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK)[1]", refer to a disputed region between India and Pakistan in South Asia that is under the de facto administration of Pakistan.
• to replace this(Pakistan-administered Kashmir (also known as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK)[1] ) refers to a disputed region between India and Pakistan in South Asia that is under the de facto administration of Pakistan.) sentence ..

However, i shall not alter status quo, if i dont get consensus(if it is opposed for a valid reason).Kashmircloud (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

implementing it since pahari sahib didnt object to this move over the course of conversations today after 00:46 14 sept till now..however i offer to undo this particular edit if valid contention is raised..Kashmircloud (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion on alternate proposal

Since the name of the article is Pakistan-administered Kashmir, that term should start the article. The article, however, is not about the "terms," but about the region. The new intro, therefore, is not appropriate and is an attempt to push a certain POV. This an attempt to rehash the debate that has already been decided. The Pakistan occupied Kashmir article was nominated for deletion on September 5, 2008. The result of the discussion was redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I understand that you disagree with that decision, but please respect the consensus and please restore the original edit.--2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 04:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Since a user has objected to my changes, i dont want to disturb STATUS QUO consensus..Hence, shall restore the original edit..Kashmircloud (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

third opinion states : "please respect the consensus and please restore the original edit"..so, restored STATUS QUO(dont distort) .. even if any opinion was "to tamper with consensus", i disagree with an unbalanced version.. hence it cant be consensus..so, please know thAT wiki is NOT ABOUT MAJORITARIANISM..see afd talk..Kashmircloud (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well put! Once a consensus has been reached, that is the will of the community and it should be respected. Consider whether or not objection fits WP:POINT. Remember, consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees, it means that the community has spoken: we have to respect that! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, community? Please see the AFD, also the comments by Soman at the end hit the nail on the head "Settling for 'no consensus' in this afd just makes the editwarring permanent. This afd had been settled as delete long time ago if it wasn't for the nationalist canvassing and constant disruptions." The AFD was marred by canvassing and in the end it was speedily closed. Also see the remarks on the talk page by ChrisO which says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by judging the quality of the arguments. You may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators". NPOV should be first and foremost in our considerations, the article already mentions the rival claims to this area, there is no need to introduce the article with POV like this. Pahari Sahib 14:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to note that the 3rd opinion was quoted inappropriately, it does say "Since the name of the article is Pakistan-administered Kashmir, that term should start the article. The article, however, is not about the "terms," but about the region. The new intro, therefore, is not appropriate and is an attempt to push a certain POV. This an attempt to rehash the debate that has already been decided."

"Please restore the original edit" the original edit was to state equally the claims by both parties. As I tried to do here. When I asked for a 3rd opinion this which was fair enough, however this was then reverted. This article seems to be acting as a POV magnet from certain quarters and this needs to be addressed. Pahari Sahib 13:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RPP and 3O leaving

Hi all. I have requested page protection on this article as the back and forth and add this, take away that has to stop. It is, for all intents and purposes, edit-wars. This is obviously a contentious topic and it's going to require a proper discussion to sort out. I would strongly recommend opening this topic up for the entire membership of Wikipedia to discuss (and not just the sides in this dispute) by putting it forward for a full RFC. I feel that it is either that or everyone would have to agree to formal mediation from MEDCOM. I don't feel this case would really be a good candidate for informal mediation but you could try that. Their are more than two users involved in this so it is no longer a case for WP:3O so I'm going to leave the debate. A parting point of advice, if I may; I don't think that any side in this dispute will end up getting "their" way: it'll be a compromise, keep that in mind. :-) Good luck, Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

POK and kashmircloud

How on earth is that term "POK" allowed to be used in the first line!!!! and why is the vandal user kashmircloud given a free run over this article i suggest removing this biased pro indian garbage from the article or adding IOK in the jammu and kashmir article its time to be fair 86.156.211.13 (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are the only one making your edits, no one is seconding them, everyone who edits reverts these pages reverts your edits. You have no consensus please stop. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

the thing is that it is called POK in Russia, India, Israel etc. In Europe it is known as PAK but there are more search hits for POK rather thank PAK I reckon the name should be changed to POK. It is what is done is most articles that are known by two diferent names for eg.the article or colors is called Color rather than Colours becausr there are more Google searches in this name. No nationaliam should come into this matter, wikipedia is for users from around the world not for nationalists from Pakistan and India.Enthusiast10 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Who cares what it's called in Russia or isreal? how about ask the Kashmiri majority population what they refer to Indian occupied Kashmir as? I have no idea why we have two articles, there should be only one named after it's official title 'Azad Kashmir'. Khokhar (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian government does not recognize 'azad kashmir'. UNHCR says there is no feedom in 'azad kashmir'.Freedom in the World 2008 - Kashmir (Pakistan) How many elections have been held there since 1947 ?? The right title for this article should be 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir'. hopefully it wont become 'Taliban occupied Kashmir' soon Wikireader41 (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The proper and appropriate term npov term is Pakistan admistered ,Kashmir Wikireader41 wiki policy when saying Taliban occupied Kashmir' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the place being called POK by several nations is important. UNHCR's stance sheds more light on the fact that the territory is 'occupied'. The edits of Mughalnz belittling the word 'POK' without a consensus on talk page is condemnable. Arjun (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Siachen Glacier

The page showed that

Since the Siachen conflict of 1984, India no longer considers the Siachen Glacier to be part of what it calls "POK"

but, India never considered Siachen glacier to be part of POK. The Shimla Accord of 1972 that demarcated the LOC did not exactly specify who had authority over the Siachen Glacier. see [1]. India always considered Siachen Glacier to be on the Indian side of LOC; eventhough Indian forces started camping there in 1984 only. Therefore, i have removed the 1980s section.. pls discuss in here before any reverts/changes. Thanks Arjun (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan still has military presence in Siachen Glacier(Siachen Conflict) that it controls thus the areas it controls in Siachen is called Pakistan administered kashmir (or pok),regard thanks man for bringing up th issue Mughalnz (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC),

Place name, hatnote and content

The place name has been debated over time and again and this has been a stable version of the article with the article title as such but the name in the article starting from "Azad Kashmir", which is the native name and this does mention both the other names as well. Second the hatnote should not be modified since the previous one was clear. Darkness Shines, you have not provided any reason for reverting the whole edit. The hatnote clarified it was an autonomous region (and atleast its autonomy as a province like or a state like) is not disputed. It's sovereignty is disputed and that is there in the hatnote already that it is under Pakistani sovereignty. There's no need to change that for no reason. On the whole this edit was useless (other than removing one of the names of the place). Yes, "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is the UN/international name, but then see Indian administered Kashmir has its native name in place. You would be wrong to change that here esp. when the alternate name was properly mentioned in the lead. There was a very good argument for it - just because Tibet doesn't like China, the "Peoples liberation Army" can not be renamed to "Peoples occupation Army" because that's not what they call themselves. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The article name is "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The international term is "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". "Azad Kashmir" is one region of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". JCAla (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know you claim that but the international name is not followed. See Jammu and Kashmir. You've not explained the hat note and the other changes (refer to edit summary and above objections). --lTopGunl (ping) 22:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the majority position, the majority description which is "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". If you want to adjust "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" to the "Indian-administered Kashmir" article, you'd have to put "Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir" into the header. Azad Kashmir is just one part. But both Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir have their own separate articles in which they are explicitly called by that name. This article is to give an overview over all of "Pakistan-adminstered Kashmir" which also historically includes the Trans-Karakoram Tract. "Indian-administered Kashmir" has only one part, so there is no reason to have an overview article. JCAla (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed in detail before. Let me say it like this, if the majority position was "Peoples occupation army" for the "Peoples liberation army" would we change that article name? No, because that's not what they call themselves. And we don't put two names in to the title so your suggestion can't be implemented. I'm waitin for the other explanations yet. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you see this: gilgitbaltistan.gov.pk? What is the official name? And do you see this: ajk.gov.pk? These are the two regions of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" as called by the government of Pakistan. If you do not adjust it to "Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir" as accurate you need to use the internationally used (i. e. by the United Nations) term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". This is the last time I am going to repeat this, "Azad Kashmir" is just one region of "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". JCAla (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

They're just the names of two administrative regions. And I know what they are. UN's term shouldn't apply to it - the native term should. --lTopGunl (ping) 15:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)