Talk:Amarnath land transfer controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amarnath land transfer controversy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

NPOV Status

usage of terms like pok/ azad kasmir/ Jammu kashmir

usage of pok -arguments for and against

Terminology like "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" and much of the text describing Kashmiri Muslims in the Land Controversy article lacks NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.201.205 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

the riots is an internal affair of india and india's view of the 'kashmir province that was annexed by pakisthan in1947' being called pakisthan occupied kashmir is apt..SO, its not non neutral.. anyway since this is not an article discussing the status of PoK..kashmiri muslims have not been maligned anywhere! be specific..removing the tagCityvalyu (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an Indian government publication, and its purpose is not to propagate India's world-view. Terminology like "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" isn't used anywhere on this site because it demonstrates a clear lack of NPOV. The tag is going back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.201.205 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so is it a pakistan website to claim otherwise?..stop using biased words,,use the words understood by the people..we cant succumb to pakistan propaganda to not call pok as pok!! 117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usage of azad k term - arguments for and against

So what else is NPOV? If we don't know then how can we correct it and remove the tag? As for the valid points you brought up, POK should be Azad Kashmir wherever listed. Is there anything else that should be rephrased? Anything else objectionably? Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is azad kashmir neutral?? for non urdu/english users, let me remind "azad" means "independence/ indepenendent" which no country recognises like the s.ossetian independence claims... please name a single nation that has recognized the so called "independent kashmir" of the captured provinces of jammu kashmir state of india?....

the status is "pakistan occupied kashmir" or "pakistan captured regions of jammu kashmir state"..admin please revert to neutral "pok"

pakistan occupation similar to russian occupation(but without a un mandate to have its armed forces there)..

although india didnt attack pok (like georgian assault on ossetia),india's position(in 1947 to 1964) nevertheless similar to georgia because jandk could not be protected from mightier capturers like china(aksai chin) and us and china backed 'unified pre 1971 pakistan' (in pok)...

certainly pakistan bias..the muslim name of the editor gives clues to his bias117.193.33.157 (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lihaas seems to be the only user who is finding fault with the article..any ulterior motives? please point out the exact reasons for npov tag..117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elucidate here that nomenclature has no bearing on what is the reality. North Korea and various other authoritarian states call themselves Democratic Republics. Taiwan is still bound to ROC even though that is the limitation to joining the UN, etc. Azad Kashmir can call itself what it likes, but on international maps Kashmir is divided, not like the maps of India IN india. PoK or IoK are terms referring to Kashmir from India and Pakistan, respectively. Here's the encyclopedia Brittanica (a neutral international source, and reputed in academia around the world: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46696/Azad-Kashmir). And here's another, albeit less reputable, if you must, http://www.world66.com/asia/southasia/pakistan/azad_kashmir Lihaas (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am afraid that you seem to have not hit right path in the discussion... if pok and iok are new terms used by biased govt.s AFTER 1947, we should not use terms like azad kashmir too because how can any neutral observer agree to a term like azad kashmir "coined by pakistan AFTER 1947" and terms like northern areas AFTER 1949 and "area ceded to china AFTER 1966" as neutral..if such terms are mentioned, then you are blatantly biased!! IF "POK" IS UNFIT FOR THIS ARTICLE, THEN, SO IS THE CASE WITH "AZAD K" ..the only neutral term is a pre 1947 word called "jammu kashmir state"..the controversial areas can be mentioned as pre 1947 j&k or pakistan captured territories of j&k or "territories of erstwhile j & k" or post 1947 pakistan occupied j & k..AZAD KASHMIR IS DEFINITELY PAKISTAN PROPAGANDA..not neutral!!!Cityvalyu (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another suggestion is to remove the contentious words (azad/pok) since it is a passing reference to a route towards india through pakistan (wagah) in any case..Cityvalyu (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so, the following is simply not true: "nomenclature has no bearing on what is the reality."..azad mean independent nation not mere name!!

why no reply "user:lihaas"? shall i assume that you agree with me in the above 2 suggestions..which is the only way i can think of in the present circumstances..Cityvalyu (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section title

I reverted the title of the "Muzzafarabad chalo..." / "Attempts to divert attention from the land controversy to an alleged economic blockade issue by the separatists" for 2 reasons. 1. the latter is far to long and winded, it disrupts the presentation of the page as the top section looks out-of-sync with other wiki pages. 2. I was inclined to go back to the Muzzafarabad chalo call. But then I realized there was no citation for the Muzzafarabad chalo call to say it was actually a rallying cry. But we can continue a debate here to get consensus on the section title. Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aticle merger

2008 kashmir unrest gives wp:undue importance to kashmir protests in the heading while ignoring the equally important JAMMU PROTESTS ..so to maintain NEUTRALITY, i had reverted the content to the previous heading since both kashmir and jammu are protesting due to "amarnath land transfer imbroglio"..hence the move to shift back content to original article name.. besides i had retained the kashmir relevant content in the "2008 kashmir unrest" as a template for a seperate article on kashmiri seperatist protests (not limited to the land controversy--evolving scenario into seperatist movement)..Kashmircloud (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go ahead with such big changes you should generally wait for some consensus. At any rate this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Kashmir_unrest#August_20_protest) isn't even edited. What do you want to say? If Jammu is removed from here, Kashmir ought to be removed from there.

It is also best to merge the two since it is very parallel and not too long an article. In the future someone may very well recommend this. Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance sources

The recent edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amarnath_land_transfer_imbroglio&diff=233563396&oldid=233510819) that I changed a bit had the following source: http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w32/idw2008.08.09.16.19.51.html#hdng8 I doubt the sincerity of this page, but what do others think. Does it seem okay? Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, no one responded117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amarnath land transfer talk

Why does this link to the 2008 KASHMIR unrest talk page. Lihaas (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

once again, no one responded117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

repetition identical

this is word for word identical to amarnath land transfer imbroglio..except may be for the international section which i offer to re introduce inthe original article..users, please help in deleting the waste article or if need be add a redirect page from this..01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

merger done ..end of discussion117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recents edits

I have requested this page to be semi-locked because of the movement within the last 24 hours. Instead of making a dozen+ edits, it would be much easier to use the WP:Sandbox. I've tried to get it back somewhat to what it was before the controversial round of edits. (Note- the language is NOT mine, i'm not reverting someone else's words to my own) If you want to change it, then fine, but do so after some WP:Consensus. Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i consider that the previous edit is also one man's opinion..one man's(lihaas) ulterior motive to prevent development of this article117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive edits?

So what needs to be changed? Should the article title change to something else? What are the suggestions and reasons? What needs to be added (as the host of edits on 22 of August showed (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amarnath_land_transfer_controversy&action=history))? Kashmircloud and 117.193.33.228, as well as cityvalu, maxim, pegasus and myself have all edited the last 24 hours. Surely there is some debate. Both Maxim and Pegasus called for discussion before movement. I'm following, so let's discuss instead of outright edit and warring as many edits have reverted each other. Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been about 3 days, and yet no one has a recommendation for edits. No constructive discussion of whether to move or what to edit. Surely there is something to edit. Any individual can request an unblock or for an admin to edit something. Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whats the dispute?puzzled state

My opinion that mirrors wiki policy is that AS LONG AS REFERENCED MATERIAL IS PRESENTED LEAVE IT AS SUCH..please dont revert or delete and this request applies to lihaas too..pegasus 's edits were hasty in that he made a mistake(assuming good faith and assuming she/he didn't intentionally vandalistically remove jammu section) while merging hence jammu went missing which was restored by large scale RE addition..so whats the dispute after merger and restoration of jammu? puzzled!Cityvalyu (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, I think, was not about undoing referenced stuff. The issue was the back and forth movement without any mention on this talk page. Going through the edits, none of the additions (even my 'reversals') were not mine. It was the continuous edits over a 24-hour period that went through a back and forth session over there. This is the first time i've seen such movement (you know this, cityvalyu, we've agreed and disagreed before), and there was no discussion, especially for the move. The dispute, I reckon, was the outright changes getting moved and unmoved, and no discussion; you can see the 24 hours period back there. Lihaas (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lihaas,

each and every movement was discussed in edit summary i guess ..anyway! the back and forth is due to a mistake by pegasus which i have explained before and which could be perfectly unintentional..read the sequence of events to know that no conspiracy theories exist here..
first, i requested article deletion AFTER WRITING THE REASON at 1. talk page, 2. beside the request and 3.edit summ ..it was declined without any discussion(see above) and a hasty incomplete verifial (not my fault-if that is the implied meaning)..
next, i reposted the delete request..this time merger was done with a redirect which was one of the options suggested by me in talk page..
but unfortunately jammu got missed out in the merger done by user:pegasus..hence the large scale addition to rectify the same..i cant explain it with any more clarity ;)..
in between an admin(as per your request, i guess) has ensured that this article can't be upgraded for 1 week..among us two, i am not to be blamed for the present scenario..

regarding reverting, please see to that you dont revert content that was altered with valid edit summaries..if you want to, then please explain your reverting edits (-i am not accusing that the others' fiction are your's in any case-) in edit summ and/or talk instead of 'just reverting'..i find no dispute to be resolved after the merger..please be specific on why this suspended animation state needs to continue for 5 more days...else please take the initiative to unblock(similar to your initiative to get it blocked)..any such move will be appreciated by 'me' certainly.. please also break your silence to reply at pok debate(above) since you "certainly" supported "azad k" (which is a very biased version)Cityvalyu (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

protected for 1 week

As requested, I have fully protected this page from edits and page moves for one week. Discuss the article's problems here and work out a solution. KrakatoaKatie 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has fell to lihaas' bait to accomplish his motive..117.193.33.157 (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no consensus was evolved before making an edit protected template..is that wiki policy to give in to a single editor's whims..please undo the hasty decision to support lihaas' suspect motives..Kashmircloud (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I will forward the two of you to the wikipedia reles WP:AGF and WP:NPA, following this you can go to WP:Civility read that and then come back here, in a manner more appropriate to discussion. Secondly, there are apparently rules governing template protection and this passed. Administrators don't work on one's mans whims. If you want to recommend something for protection or to remove protection go and ahead and do that. There's no need to complain when any of you can do this. Furthermore, before making large scale edits and moving things around you need to get consensus and put it up for debate (that's what you can use this talk facility for instead of using it to get back at someone). Read WP:Consensus. Finally, as for the IP's comments above see this: WP: SILENCE. Lihaas (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely Biased Pro Indian Article

This is a totaly biased article which reflects what is totally wrong with wikipedia.... the comments below lifted from a indian newspaper are completeley loaded,,, and portray a completely biased indian point of view...cliaming that the hindu protests where some how peacfull yet the muslim protests where not cos they shouted louder,,,???"The peaceful demonstrations in this otherwise bustling Jammu city was in stark contrast to the high decibel protests in Srinagar[62]"I found completely contradictory articles from independent sites eg CNN http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/12/kashmir.protests"!!!!!!!!"The Hindu protesters have conducted violent demonstrations for more than a month, demanding restoration of land allotted to a Hindu board" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.77.213 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cnn is no more independent than times
indian controversy between two sections of a particular state within india can be best covered by india (not by someone sitting in usa or islamabad!!) so what wiki policy prohibits such use??!!!
both kashmir and jammu are internationally recognised as part of india..so, is pro jammu 'indian' or is pro srinagar 'indian'?..both are indian!!!..no place for pakistan or cnn point of view!! 40 acres of land for temporary accomodation for temporary period is an "internal affair" of india..i dont see any locus standi for usa/ pok / northern areas of pok/ pakistan in this land controversy article..may be indo-pak dispute articles(1947 / 1971/ 1999 wars) can be of help for a locus standi for a foreign nation..
no one disputes that violent protests were there in kashmir valley as well as jammu ..but on that particular day, there was a contrast..thats what the source said..please check..
the presence of a pakistan terminology like "azad k." reflects the hypocrisy of calling this "pro indian"..may be it should be called pro pakistan or anti indian point of view till that biased term weeded out..Cityvalyu (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions Pro Indian article

the section under the international reaction im shocked to find that the views of thr UN (united nations) is not given they have criticised india strongly include this as this article is totally pro india and pro hindu. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7587358.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.70.25 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Domestic reaction should also include the FACT that hundreds of thousands of kashmiris want intervention by the United Nations http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/08/18/asia/OUKWD-UK-KASHMIR-PROTESTS.php[reply]

If you think it biased make constructive edits to the contrary. Be WP:Bold Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

Dirty politicsof PDP has killed more than 100 people in Kashmir as well as Jammu. For God's sake love the humanity. user:sarbjeet_1313me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.138 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit explanation

I edited the environmental concern sentence because certain stuff was not in the source. It appeard as original research. Granted it could well be valid. Feel free to add the sources back with an additional citation that mentions the removed text.

The recent developments part was copy edited as it was a verbatim copy from times of india as well as it needed context to this article where all the info was not relevant. I also changed the title because "recent" was not appropriate (and will not be) as time goes by. The current title is not too great, so feel free to come up with something better.

I also changed the subheading of Kashmir fruit grower's protest as it goes beyond a fruit growers protest. It started out that way, granted, thus the first sub-subheading is relevant, but the others are too simplistic to say fruit growers. Lihaas (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Kashmir

I have removed all Greater Kashmir sources as its biased non reliable self published source. Also one fact was solely supported by this sources, so I have removed it too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Amarnath land transfer controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Amarnath land transfer controversy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]