Talk:Kashmir Valley

Population

The population given in this article contradicts what is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_districts_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Kashmir_valley_division

File:Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Duplicated article

See this and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_of_Kashmir

TripWire revert

@TripWire: I am not sure why you reverted here. All the edits appear properly sourced to me. Of course, we don't need the "saucer shape" in the lead, but that is a copy-edit that we can do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I think did you a favour, as I dont see any copy-edit here. If you think I was wrong, please feel free to correct it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Religious groups in Kashmir Valley

I want to tell you all that exact percentages of religion in Kashmir valley is not available on any page. You have to calculate them by finding specific religions' populations of individual districts. Kashmir Valley has ten districts. I added the populations of each religious group for each district of Kashmir Valley and then calculated the overall percentages of different religious groups in Kashmir Valley. I found the population of each religious group in the division from the link I gave. My link or source takes you to official site of census of India (at the page: Population by Religious Community). After you click on your desired state, a Microsoft excel document get downloaded. After you open the document, the population by religious community is displayed on State, District, Sub District and municipality level and you can calculate the religious populations of a particular division of your state (here: Kashmir Valley) by adding the specific religious populations of the districts present in that division and then find the percentage. Isn't a source from the official govt. site of census is reliable enough ?

The current reference is outdated and is about census 2001. That source also involves calculations of religious populations but is outdated. Please do check this. And the source provided by me gives religious populations not only on State level but also on District and sub district level. I added my source. If anybody finds the source unreliable then please do explain the reason before removing it. I hope my explanation is just and fair. Vibhss (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kashmir Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailytimes.com.pk%2Fdefault.asp%3Fpage%3D2008%5C%5C05%5C%5C30%5C%5Cstory_30-5-2008_pg7_56&date=2009-09-04 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Per source

Reverted to what the source says.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't matter. One can find enough sources for the other phraseology too. But, we are supposed to treat all areas of Kashmir the same way. You are being selective. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Did I read you correct? The doesnt matter? If you can find 'enough sources' for the phraseology, please add those and change the sentence. The current source does not support the phrase you selectively are being replacing. Also, why do I need to get consensus? You and Filpro are removing long standing, the burden for its justification is on you.

@RegentsPark: didnt you impose some restriction on Kashmir related pages? How come sourced info is being changed to support one's POV and the editor has the cheeks to tell me to gain consensus?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have read me correctly. We use sources for content, not for wording. If the wording is critical to the meaning and context, then we may use the original wording, but most of them time we don't. Jammu and Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit, Baltistan, none of those pages use the wording of XYZ-administered. This page has somehow slept through the cracks. Filpro noticed it and changed it. I don't see any reason for you to edit-war over it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

None of those pages are using that wording because the sources they quote dont use them! There is no policy which says that a certain set of articles must use the same terminology all across the board. In this case, the source used here to say that Kashmir is an Indian state clearly mentions that it falls in the "Indian-administered (part of) Kashmir", and hence the same phrase is used in the article. You cannot possibly change that to your own liking and POV. There is no edit-warring, just following WP policies which you ought too. BTW, the word is critical to the meaning and context of the article, and hence the same must be used. You want to change the word (which is long standing), you need to change the source, hence the sentence, but then before doing that there is a long line of consensus that you need to built as the article is under sanctions and certain restriction imposed by RegentsPark.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I imposed restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan. While this seems - at best - marginal to that restriction, I suggest sticking to the previous stable wording "Indian-administered state of Jammu & Kashmir" while you figure out what the consensus wording should be. --regentspark (comment) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark Do you agree that whatever wording is decided, it should be applied to all areas of the Kashmir region? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. While that does sound reasonable, I think you'll need consensus on that as well. If a case by case approach doesn't work then perhaps you should open an RfC on what to do for all Kashmir related articles. Given the general tenor of discussion on these articles, I'm not sure that will work well but it will put this on the DR road to arbcom. And that's where all this is probably headed. --regentspark (comment) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, whoever wants to make a case for treating the Kashmir Valley differently from other parts of Kashmir, can make a case. Until then, Filpro's wording is in line with everything else on Wikipedia, and I support it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm pinging @Fowler&fowler: on this. I have a vague recollection that this - where to use 'administered' - was discussed somewhere. --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and TripWire: The problem is that "Kashmir Valley" is not a political term; rather, it is a somewhat vague geographical term, which, historically, was more often referred to as the "Vale of Kashmir." It is being conflated, here on this page, with the "Kashmir division," of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. For example, the Kolahoi Peak (elevation 18,000 feet) certainly does not lie in the Kashmir Valley, as it is very much a part of the Greater Himalayas, on the northeast, below which the valley lies; however, it is in Kashmir division. The Kashmir division, on the other hand, is a political term, invented after India chose to create political units of whatever territory it was left with of the Kashmir region after the cease-fire of 1948. It would be hardly likely that the Indians and Pakistanis would stop fighting exactly along the borders of a valley.

As for this page—as I remember it—it was long a page redirected to the Kashmir page. Then in 2010, a user in this edit, removed the redirection, and copied and pasted some material from the Kashmir page to create a starter article. Then in fits and starts material was added to the page until on Wikipedia, Kashmir division is now identical to Kashmir valley. This has to be immediately corrected. From my perspective, both the Kashmir valley and the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) are content forks (and POV forks) of the main Kashmir page. Here is my recommendation. Create a new page on Kashmir Division, put all the political, demographic, and other stuff in it. Keep this page as a geographical page in the fashion of the Britannica page Vale of Kashmir to which, in fact, the first sentence of this Wikipedia article is cited. Note that the Britannica article is mainly geographical and historical, and does not use the word "Indian state," referring only to the Indian administration of this region of Kashmir. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

PS @RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and TripWire: I have shown in three edits (all self-reverted later) what the lead and first section should look like when made NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Fowler here. Not only by changing part of the first line as per ones wishes, Kautilya3 is violating WP:SYNTHESIS but also [WP:NOV]]. As regards to Kautilya3's comments, well this is WP, not Bharatpedia. You cannot and will not convert this encyclopedia into some offshoot of Bharat-Rakshak. You are the one who is proposing the change and thus the burden of building the case to gain consensus for the change is on you. Until you do that, WP stays as it is supposed to. As can be seen by the comments by editors above including an Admin, as of now it is you who seems to be the odd one out. Please see to that.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Deciding the scope of this article is well and good, and I will be happy to discuss it in a separate section. But I think the specific problem being discussed at the moment is whether the terminology of "Indian-administered" should be used in this artcle for the portion of J&K under Indian control. I am basically ok with doing it, but only if every reference to any portion of J&K is similarly labelled as "Indian-administered" or "Pakistani-administered." We can probably do a site-wide RfC and get everybody to agree to it. Short of that, I don't want any selective labeling. Contrary to TripWire, I don't believe this is an issue of sources, rather one of common sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:@RegentsPark and TripWire: Kautilya3, I'm afraid that is how you have framed the question. This talk page is about the Kashmir valley page, which, in my view, is a POV content fork, with highly inaccurate conflation of the "Kashmir valley," with "Kashmir division." The other question is a more general question. You are free to pose it on some South Asian or Asian forum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it make sense to flip the redirects? Rename this Kashmir Division and let Kashmir Valley point to it? The article does seem to be more about the entire Indian administered Kashmir rather than just the valley (and has huge chunks that overlap with Kashmir). --regentspark (comment) 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, this article should be called "Kashmir" and the present Kashmir page should be called "Kashmir region". This Kashmir existed as far as back as Kalhana, who called it "Kashmir proper" according to Andre Wink [1].

We don't want a yet another page on Kashmir. There are far too many already. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Kashmir Division" or "Kashmir Province" certainly existed during the colonial times [2], and perhaps even earlier. It isn't a modern creation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

No Kashmir valley certainly cannot be called "Kashmir," as references to Kashmir in the literature, Wink notwithstanding, overwhelming refer to the wider region. The "Kashmir," Wikpedia page use to be "Kashmir region," but in those days the Britannica page (on which it was modeled) was also called the "Kashmir region." Now the Britannica page is "Kashmir" (its subtitle is "Region: Indian subcontinent.") See here. As for RPs suggestion, it would be a quick solution, but the only problem is that Kashmir is a disputed region. An international encyclopedia cannot make the error of siding with national interpretation of a dispute. In my view, "Kashmir valley," and "Kashmir," which are primarily about geography and history, should maintain this objective distance. The political pages, which refer to the various provinces, created by the various parties to the dispute to aid in the administration of the regions under their control, such as Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir can use the national formulations. I don't see any problem with an independent Kashmir Division page, but Kashmir valley cannot be written up as "Kashmir division," nor have too much about the administration of this region. Note that the Britannica article has nothing. Kautilya3, As for your latest source, even though it is not exactly reliable, it makes that case that the valley is not the division (it says, division = valley + muzzaffarabad). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Clearly Kashmir straddles two countries so we can't say "Kashmir, a region in the Indian state....". My suggestion was based on the assumption that Kashmir Division is a recognizable administrative entity in India and that would make it clear that we're referring to something in India. If that's not the case then we should stick to Kashmir (the disputed region). If there is to be an article on the Kashmir Valley, it needs to be stripped of all the Kashmir related stuff that is currently padding it. For example, we have an etymology section in Kashmir, do we need to rehash it here?--regentspark (comment) 17:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark, Kautilya3, and TripWire: I agree with RP, with one slight difference. If there is to be a redirect "Kashmir valley" should be redirected to Kashmir, as it originally was for its first four or five years. In fact, I wasn't aware of the existence of the independent "Kashmir valley" page until someone (and it may have been Kautilya3) who pointed it out to me not too long ago. In that case, the Kashmir page can have a separate section on the "Kashmir valley," broadly mimicking the Britannica page "Vale of Kashmir." Otherwise, as RP says, if "Kashmir valley" has to be an independent page, it has to be shorn of all administrative, demographic related stuff. And, in that case, "Kashmir division" can be an independent page as well. So, generally speaking: a) if redirection is warranted, then Kashmir valley ---> Kashmir, and "Kashmir division" ---> Jammu and Kashmir. b) if new pages are warranted, then "Kashmir valley" will need to be an independent page shorn of all references to the Indian state Jammu and Kashmir; those references can go into a new page Kashmir Division, which is being currently redirected to Kashmir valley. The other Kashmir related pages, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), I would not touch for now. The former two already have the Pakistani POV, the latter two the Indian POV. It would be a near impossible task to get their editors to write "Pakistani administered" or "Indian administered" everywhere. But, from my perspective, the Kashmir and Kashmir valley pages have to be kept free of nationalist POVs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, commonsense (and WP policies) says that critical phrases should be in consonance with the source. If the source says 'Indian-administered-Kashmir' then that's what will be written in the article. Or else, let's change all references of genocide to let's say massacre or bloodshed or whatever in all Bangladesh Liberation/War related pages.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am quite happy with the separation you propose between political units and geographical/cultural/historial units. I wouldn't accept the latter to be merely "geographical." If I were a Kashmiri, I would be pretty upset if you start talking about the land, the valleys and mountains, while ignoring me, my culture and my history. The land and the people have to go together.
• I think I also disagree as to what "Kashmir" means. In India, "Kashmir" means the valley of Kashmir or the Kashmir Division, the difference between them being slight. And secondly it is also used as a short form for Jammu and Kashmir. Culturally aware scholars always make this clear, for example, Sumantra Bose: "the territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), often called simply Kashmir" and "`Azad' Jammu and Kashmir, or AJK".

Most of the current content of the Kashmir page belongs here, because it is all history and culture of the Kashmir proper, not of this fake entity that was hastily cobbled together by the Dogras and the East India Company. Frankly, it is a shame to waste this great name on the fake entity, but I bow to the public opinion, however ill-informed it might be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, RegentsPark, and TripWire: Sumantra Bose's book, in fact, refers to the Wikipedia page Jammu and Kashmir as IJK (Indian-controlled J&K). By J&K it means the princely state, ie. the Kashmir page. I quote: " The confrontation focused worldwide attention on the dispute between India and Pakistan over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), often called simply Kashmir. The dispute is as old as the two states themselves, dating back to the circumstances of their independence from Britain and the partition of the subcontinent in 1947. Since the end of the first India-Pakistan war over Kashmir in January 1949. The territory has been divided into Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir (or IJK, comprising the regions of the Kashmir Valley, Jammu, and Ladakh), with aproximately up to million people and a smaller area under Pakistani control (Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or AJK, plus sparsely populated regions in the high Himalayas known as Pakistan's Northern Areas), with perhaps 3 million." See Bose, Sumantra (2009), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, p. 2, ISBN 978-0-674-02855-5 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I should have said a bit more to make it clearer. I am not talking about India vs Paksitan-control issue now. I was trying to say that calling the "Kashmir region" (the former princely state) as "Kashmir" is a bad idea. This page's Kashmir is the Kashmir that matters, this is where the sage Kashyapa belongs, and Rajatarangini, the Karkota empire and what not. This is the Kashmir that India and Pakistan fight over. This is the Kashmir that the world wants to talk about. The rest of it is noise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. The region of the princely state, is exactly what Sumantra Bose is calling "Kashmir." Please reread. I have the book, I have read it many times and quoted it on the Kashmir page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly so. But he makes it clear that he calls the former princely state "Kashmir" just for convenience. Its real name is "Jammu and Kashmir." To be perfectly clear:

• "Jammu and Kashmir" has two meanings: the former princely state, and the IJK.
• "Kashmir" has two meanings: the Kashmir valley and abbreviation for the former princely state. (Oh well, it might also be an abbreviation for IJK on occassion.)

So we have a semantic minefield. But the real point for me is that the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir is probably the least important of all. It is just a paper thing now. I don't think India will ever press for it (even though legally it has to). Neither does Pakistan care for it. It is the Kashmir valley that is central to the whole affair, and we shouldn't make it out as if it is just a little valley somewhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Sumantra Bose (p.171): That “state” existed under British imperial power for barely a century (1846–1947) and cobbled together diverse regions and ethnic and religious communities under a despotic, semi-feudal monarchy (see Chapter 1). It is not at all clear why a territory with a relatively brief and distinctly undistinguished genealogy of “statehood” should be elevated to a sacrosanct status. Such an ideological doctrine smacks of the same syndrome—fetishization of “territorial integrity” and a rigid, monolithic conception of sovereignty— characteristic of state-led nationalist stances on the Kashmir question.

It is this entity with "distinctly undistinguished genealogy" that we (and the EB) want to promote as the Kashmir! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We have to go with the reliable sources, not just Britannica, but also Sumantra Bose, Mridu Rai, Chitralekha Zutshi, Burton Stein, Ian Copland, Stanley Wolpert and many others, which are referred to on the Kashmir page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid you have been misreading the sources based on your own pre-conditioning. As I already mentioned, "Kashmir" is ambiguous. It could mean either the Kashmir Valley or Kashmir region. Unless you are alert to the ambiguity, you are liable to substitute one for the other.

• Mridu Rai, for example, states: At issue is the legitimacy of a political enterprise, begun by the British in 1846, that placed an 'alien' Dogra Hindu ruling house over Kashmir without consideration for the wishes or interests of the vast majority of its people. If your interpretation of "Kashmir" as Kashmir region is correct, how exactly do you suppose Dogra Hindus became 'alien'? Your attempt to treat "Kashmir" as a "landscape without people" is precisely what Mridu Rai's book is protesting.
• Burton Stein's historical maps (2, 7, 8) show "Kashmir" as Kashmir valley, and modern maps (1, 10, 12) show "Jammu and Kashmir" or "Kashmir and Jammu". In the text however, he introduces "the princely state of Kashmir" (p. 316), which is obviously a shorthand for Kashmir and Jammu.
• Chitralekha Zutshi says We need to trace the main themes in the political culture of the Valley from the fourteenth to the mid-nineteenth century in an attempt to disentangle representations of Kashmir in popular and scholarly discourse from historical fact. Do you not see that she is using the "Valley" and "Kashmir" synonymously? On the other hand, it is "the state of Jammu and Kashmir" that lies on the northern fringes of the Indian subcontinent and exhibits a varied geography. Why do you think she uses "Dogra state" all over the book?

I am afraid the culturally/historically aware reliable sources are against your position. It is only the political books that identify "Kashmir" and Kashmir region, because they have already dehumanized "Kashmir." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, RegentsPark, and TripWire:. How many examples do you want me to give from these books in which the authors mean the entire Kashmir region when they use "Kashmir?" Approximately a month ago you are saying, "But, my point is that the traditional extent of "Kashmir" is not much different from that of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It has always been larger than the Kashmir valley." (See here.) First you were making the claim that the traditional early medieval- and medieval legendary Hindu "histories" were referring to the entire Kashmir region. Now you are saying that these refer to the Kashmir valley. I won't be responding to your fringe views, especially ones that flip flop all over the place. I will await others' responses. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would say you are not setting a good example to newbies with an outburst like that. These are reliable sources that you have yourself provided. Presumably you didn't think they were WP:FRINGE when you did so?

Regarding my earlier comment that you refer to, I had put "Kashmir" in quotes precisely to indicate that it was the stylized use of "Kashmir." There is Kashmir proper and there is greater/wider Kashmir which varied through history. The edit you made in the Kashmir region article to the effect that its meaning was fixed till the mid-19th century is WP:OR and it is contradicted by historians. That is an issue we need to get back to, eventually. I have been checking the sources.

I have never denied that there were two notions of "Kashmir." Neither am I too fussed about which article gets to be called "Kashmir." What alarms me is your proposal to define the scope of the present article as being merely geographic, without its people, culture, language and history. The Kashmir region article, if it is to be true to that name, should describe the people/cultures/languages/history of the entire region, which it is not doing at present. Instead, the content that rightly belongs in this article sits there. So my problem is not merely terminology, but the lopsided content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing new here, Kautilya3 has a habit of cherry-picking polices and presenting selective info to further his POV. Like this time he is more bent towards 'common' knowledge than following the source when it comes to using a particular phrase, but then just moments after he is rejecting this very common knowledge and pushing in sources to support his point. Let's not be alarmed. Though I think this article is an overkill when it comes to encyclopedic Kashmir and is not required in its present shape, but then what I care more about is that nationalistic views should be totally rejected if it is kept or better, both side's view must be presented if no middle ground is reached.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Another break

Dear Wiki Editors, it is not inappropriate to have a bias or viewpoint in life. @Kautilya3, has some very partisan and skewed views on India in general and Kashmir in specific. This person touts to be an expert on matters related to the Indian subcontinent. This is far from the truth. Please examine this person's edit/talk and block/ban history. You will see that the person uses these techiques rather freely and is very aggressive. Though this person is one of the few from that part of the world, the material that will be published is going to be colored by the person's biases. This is neither objective, fair or polite. Please look into this matter and escalate my request. If there was a place to ask for an administer review or there is a such a form, please point me to it so that I can fill one out. Thank you.2602:30A:C7D7:E590:7DB6:4D6D:8EE6:12EA (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. Unless you give us something concrete, I'm afraid we can't do much with your post. As far as I can tell user:Kautilya3 does not have any block history. I on the other hand, do (see here) albeit from a long time ago. It really does not prove anything, at least in my view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing

"The Kashmir Valley is a valley in the Indian-administered region of Kashmir ..." Does this introductory sentence not give the impression that Kashmir is administered by India in its entirety? And that is factually incorrect. Political systems manage geographical features, what is the problem with that? Wasiq 9320 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. "Indian-administered region of Kashmir" clearly implies that there are other regions of Kashmir not administered by India. --regentspark (comment) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wasiq 9320 and RegentsPark: Oh, I see, Wasiq 9320 is interpreting "region" to mean "the entire region." I am changing it to, "... in the portion of the Kashmir region administered by India." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good F&f. Though I would have gone with 'part' rather than 'portion'. Too formal!--regentspark (comment) 14:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out by RegentsPark, the previous version amply showed that there are regions of Kashmir not being administered by India, but the current versions will also do.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Administered" is the perfect word. Neither is it very hostile nor very friendly. To access to India, a state must sign three documents to give away it's sovereignty. They are the Instrument of Accession , Standstill , and Merger. But Kashmir only signed the first one, and that was undemocratic, as the people were not consulted before. Tariq Ahmed Bhat (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kashmir Valley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109091413/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200709130350.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200709130350.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109091716/http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/004200903181221.htm to http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/004200903181221.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"administered" word is being vandalized again

Hello. I just restored a version where some unregistered user by the ip "106.78.11.161" had tried to change "administered by india" with "of Jammu and Kashmir state of India". I have rolled back that edit because as it stands, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47#The_Resolution clearly mentions in "the second step",

"In the second step, India was asked to "progressively reduce" its forces to the minimum level required for keeping law and order. It laid down principles that India should follow in administering law and order in consultation with the Commission, using local personnel as far as possible."

Situation has not changed with regards to united nations and any action taken against that resolution is illegal. This is an act to perverting the cause of justice and as such, should not be allowed.

The talk page has already discussed this at length and has agreed to keep the "admninisterd by india" so i dont see why some random persons edit should be taken seriously. Mhveinvp (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

geographic articles follow the accepted common names, in the Lead and the opening statement, this is not vandalism. "Indian administered" is acceptable where the context demands it, this is not the place. The UN resolution and all that are political topics and are covered in Kashmir. Please do such edits there and not here.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

are we starting a semantic war again? I reverted an edit changing the page. I just want the page to as it was earlier, why is that a problem? why should this nobody's edit be accepted and whatever written earlier be discarded? If un resolutions are "political" issues, why was the word "administered" there before? why did no responsible editor change that? why suddenly do YOU want to accept a change that was uncalled for, by someone unknown and reject existing text? based on what? isnt changing the words politicizing the issue in the first place? again, I am NOT the one who changed the text. Someone else did? They wanted to make this page politically correct in their opinion. I was just reversing that. Why is my reversal seen as bad? Mhveinvp (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Have you checked the earlier thread where the editors last time decided to KEEP the "administered" word? i am just enforcing this decision and you are blaming me of politicizing the issue. sad. If you want, we can do a site wide rfc Mhveinvp (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related to the "administered" issue may be that this page conflates two topics: The geographical area (the rift valley) and the Kashmir Division of Jammu and Kashmir state. The latter is an administrative subdivision of an Indian state, so referring to it as a part of Jammu and Kashmir without bothering that Pakistan also claims the territory seems reasonable to me. For the former, "Indian-administered part of Kashmir" seems at least as reasonable. Huon (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the word "state" for the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir. Its "statehood" is not recognized internationally, indeed was the subject of a UN resolution and condemnation in the early 1950s. Also the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan page use "administered." The Jammu and Kashmir page does not use the word "administered," a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, no doubt effected by India-POV pushers. All pages, including Kashmir valley and Jammu and Kashmir need to use the word "administered" in any reference to the "state." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Please see the Britannica page on the Vale of Kashmir, which states, "Vale of Kashmir, intermontane valley, western Jammu and Kashmir state, northern India. Lying wholly within the Indian-administered portion of the Kashmir region, it is flanked by the main range of the Himalayas on the northeast and the Pir Panjal Range on the southwest." Also who has added the "rift valley" bit. As far as I am aware Kashmir is an intermontane valley. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

In other words, even though it technically uses the word "state," it is quick to explain that it is the region administered by India. I suggest that the word state not be used at all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It will be rather difficult to describe an administrative district without saying what it's a district of. Whether or not Pakistan (or the world) accepts India's claims as legit doesn't much affect the relation between the Kashmir Valley district and Jammu and Kashmir, or the place of the district within India's system of administrative divisions. Huon (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Huon, That's not the issue at hand. No one is claiming to write something like "administered state" without mentioning india or Pakistan but the idea that India as well as Pakistan and china who like it or not are by UN resolution illegally holding onto "Kashmir" by by force, the details of that are present everywhere and i don't wish to dwell on that. The current situation arises due to the fact that its an established fact that this "Kashmir valley" in question is "administered by India". The international law is clear on that fact but the so called hyper nationalist Indians somehow see that as an insult to their "great nation" and want to usually covertly and i suppose in this case an unregistered user tried to do it overtly, to change that legal position to suit their ideology. I believe that's vandalism. To quote the use to reversed my edit,

geographic articles follow the accepted common names, in the Lead and the opening statement, this is not vandalism. "Indian administered" is acceptable where the context demands it, this is not the place. The UN resolution and all that are political topics and are covered in Kashmir. Please do such edits there and not here.

Essentially what this user is saying, that the first person to make the edit, changing the word "administered by India" to "state of India" has changed a common name and that the same is a "political topic" and that this is fine? I have full respect to the person, whoever he/she is but u suppose they did NOT read the talk page discussions on the same word usage from 3 years ago and went ahead with the rollback "just because". I don't understand it. It does NOT fit the narrative of a unified and "one India", I know but that's India's problem and as someone who was born a Kashmiri, still am living here, I HAVE TO FACE repercussions of India's march for unification by all means necessary. Look at the hundreds of pages of human rights violations by both India and Pakistan on Kashmiris over the last many many years. Using the word "Administered by India" is not fun for an average Indian but for someone like me, This is the identity that i have to maintain until the so called "plebiscite" is held and the fate of this nation is decided. Untill then, This word should stay. Mhveinvp (talk) 05:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Nothing complicated about this. Write the lead as:

The Kashmir Valley, also known as the Vale of Kashmir, is an intermontane valley, or basin, in the portion of the Kashmir region administered by India. The valley is bounded on the southwest by the Pir Panjal Range and on the northeast by the main Himalayas range. It is approximately 135 km long and 32 km wide, and drained by the Jhelum River. Kashmir division is one of the three administrative divisions of the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir division borders Jammu Division to the south and Ladakh to the east while Line of Control forms its northern and the western. The division consists of the following districts: Anantnag, Baramulla, Budgam, Bandipore, Ganderbal, Kupwara, Kulgam, Pulwama, Shopian and Srinagar.

This is exactly the language used in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. Until December 2018 this is what this page use to say. See here).Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring the tirade of accusations and insinuations by the opener of this section. The fact is that the Kashmir Valley is conflated here with the division, lies entirely within the "Indian state" and I don't why the lead shouldn't reflect it. As for Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and the use of "administered" is because even Pakistan considers them as such [they are Pakistani territories not one of its administrative units] and when and if they become provinces [as might be the case with Gilgit]/other units, I'll expect the articles to reflect the same. As for ""administered" word is being vandalized again", this exactly what it is, using the word in unrelated, unneeded contexts. Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, the editor has WP:CANVASSed a lot of users after opening this discussion: Fowler, TripWire RegentsPark. Gotitbro (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro:, The word administered had been used in the lead from at least mid-August 2016 until early March 2019, when it was changed by an IP without any edit summary in this edit. The version that has existed in the lead for two and a half years is the WP:STATUSQUO version. I am restoring that version. Please read the previous discussions on this talk page. If you are not satisfied with it, please bring it up for discussion again, but for now the STATUSQUO version remains. We can't have random IPs coming by and changing language that has gone into the lead after much discussion. Please also note that lots of people post on my page about the Kashmir region, as they do about India. I am the leading contributor to both the Kashmir and the India pages. Posting on a user talk page to bring attention to a discussion or a disruptive edit is not canvassing. Please read the first sentence of WP:Canvassing. PS. @RegentsPark:, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the language used in the present article, it is clear from which users were notified and the tone used by editor therein and here that the intention was not simply to "bring attention" to a dispute. Gotitbro (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Issues of behavior are typically first raised at a user's talk page, and thereafter at ANI. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Gititbro, pardon my use of the language the way i did on the talk page here but are you actually considering "MY" intentions when someone ELSE drew the proverbial first blood by making the edit? I may have used some strong words but that should not be the point of this discussion. I simply pointed out that someone had made an uncalled-for edit and I reversed THAT edit. I had no intention to make a political move or cause any trouble. Apparently this unknown person had an agenda of some unknown nature and i happened to come between that. Why are my actions being discussed here? I have the page on my watchlist. As the editor [User talk:Fowler&fowler] said, this particular word had been in the lead statement since 2016. If some unknown user comes in, makes an edit without any detail, any information as to why the change was needed, what do you usually call that action? Yes i did reach out to a couple of people to bring to their attention about the edit because these very people had already discussed the same issue at length above on the talk page many years ago. Why is that a problem ? I simply saw the edit and the original discussion on the talk page disagreed with the latest edit, so i reversed that. Mhveinvp (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

INB discussion

Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Article expansion

Looking at the large encyclopedic material availble both online and offline with regard to the topic which is mostly a geographical in nature, I added few more sections to the article and moved the administrative content of this article to the Kashmir Division page as that one is most appropriate for the purpose. The reason behind creating a separate page for The Kashmir Division is that it not only includes the Kashmir Valley as a whole but also some other areas like Uri, Tangdar, Keran and Gurez which can't be covered under the Valley article. Apart from the infrastructure, developement it can also have some political related content. RegentsPark, Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3 your comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. MehrajMir (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, @Mehrajmir13:, I had to revert your edit. It is too large, made all at once. The sourcing for geography is not the most scholarly. Besides, there is a bigger problem. Kashmir is the main geography article, only when it begins to overflow can the geography be spun off to other articles, with a summary in Kashmir. As yet I don't see that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer that you not create a separate page on Kashmir Division. The politics belong to the J&K union territory for post-2019 material; to J&K state between 1954 and 2019) and to Kashmir before 1954. We have to be very very care with all Kashmir-related pages on Wikipedia. Too much detail becomes a way of highlighting (and thereby legitimizing in the interpretation of some) what is notable by virtue of a country (which is a party to a dispute) administering a disputed territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The talk page has a vital article tag at the top and it surely needs an improvement. I can find some better sources for that particular section and if for any other reason that is not to be included, what about other sections like economy, culture and flora and fauna. MehrajMir (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Individual editors make those changes to the vital articles lists without ascertaining the consensus that has existed for upward of 13 years. That is not a warrant to expand. The Kashmir page on Wikipedia was modeled on the one in Britannica. The Vale of Kashmir (=Kashmir Valley) page on Britannica has remained essentially a stub since 1998. Please see the history. All encyclopedias keep the POV implications of such expansions in mind. Infrastructure, politics, or tourism are associated with an administering country. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Agriculture, Arts and Crafts, and Flora and Fauna? Is there any way to include those sections? MehrajMir (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add those to the talk page of Kashmir one section at a time, e.g. Flora and fauna, but please do so for all of the Kashmir region, i.e. flora and fauna in Jammu, Ladaskh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, Baltistan, Aksai Chin. That would be a great addition. Flora and fauna (with same initial as my own :)) might be a great topic, without too much POV. Why don't you present that at Talk:Kashmir and then we can improve it, if it needs improving. Thanks, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

This one has also a talk page, why go on the separate articles talk page? It was suggested above that "Kashmir valley" has to be an independent page, it has to be shorn of all administrative, demographic related stuff. And, in that case, "Kashmir division" can be an independent page as well. That's what was done, look at the Diff of the edit. MehrajMir (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the expansion of the article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Taking it farward to Talk:Kashmir.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Is there any reason that "Agriculture, Arts and Crafts, and Flora and Fauna" sections not to be included?  MehrajMir (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The Kashmir region is a disputed region, administered by three disputing countries: India, Pakistan, and China. The India-Pakistan dispute constitutes the oldest dispute (of a territory) before the United Nations that has created major instability in the region, and in the world. It constitutes also one of the most toxic areas of POV conflict on Wikipedia for which ARBCOM has created strictly enforced discretionary sanctions. The Kashmir page has been maintained in a strict NPOV fashion for the better part of 13 years, with a content hierarchy: Kashmir is the flagship page for the region, especially its geography, geology, biodiversity (which includes flora and fauna), hydrology, limnology, languages, pre-1947 history, traditional arts and crafts, traditional culture, all topics that are intrinsic to the land, and its society. The second level of the hierarchy is the major subregions of administration: Jamm and Kashmir and Ladakh administered by India; Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan administered by Pakistan; and Aksai Chin and Trans-Korakorem Tract administered by China. Care has to be taken to avoid content-forks. For the last 13 years, editors espousing the POVs of the three disputing countries, but especially India and Pakistan, have attempted to create such content-forks in the daughter articles in order to highlight their various POVs in a manner that is at variance with the overall NPOV of Kashmir. Even in something as harmless as Flora and fauna, nationalism and chauvinism can easily create a lopsided encyclopedic description. The Kashmir Valley is a page that should not have been there on WP in the first place. For years it was redirected to Kashmir. Then after it had been created without consensus, nothing but the barest of details were allowed. As I have stated to the nominator of this RfC in the section above, this article has followed the Vale of Kashmir page on Britannica, which too has remained a stub since 1998. See the links above. The nominator is not even following the long-maintained talk page etiquette of this page. For even the slightest of changes in phrasing, people spend endless hours coming to a consensus on the talk page. Earlier today, the nominator, split the page into two pages, the Kashmir valley and the Kashmir Division, and despite that managed to add 50KB and 1,000 words in one edit. He pinged three editors including me. I responded first and explained that a consensus of encyclopedic partitioning had been maintained on the Kashmir-related pages. Without waiting for the other two pinged editors to respond, the nominator has started an RfC. If I say, he went off in a huff, I get into trouble, but that is essentially what it is. We are all human beings, but the process and NPOV are more important. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• No, nothing was said about consensus, your revert summary "The sources for geography are not the most scholarly" and was also repeated on this talk page above. The world is moving on. 10 years, 13 years is no excuse for not improving an article and that too which has a WP:VA5 tag on the top of the talk page. MehrajMir (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The tag was added by a WP editor without consultation on the page. I have already offered you to present a proposed text on Flora and fauna of Kashmir on the Talk: Kashmir page. I would be very happy to help you improve it, if improving is needed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - There is very little information about this dispute. I don't see how a section on "Agriculture, Arts and Crafts, and Flora and Fauna" would be politically charged. Transcendence (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is a brief history of the dispute: Kashmir#1947_and_1948. Let us consider Flora and fauna. I have some general knowledge, having written the Geography and Biodiversity sections of the FA India. Years ago, I also worked on the Snow Leopard, an animal found in both (India and Pakistani administered regions) Similarly, for Kashmir Musk Deer (is found in the greater Kashmir region, i.e. it is not limited to Indian-administered Kashmir) see this Nature article, published January 2020 (See figure 1 there). For flora, the article Evolutionary diversification of plant species in the Himalaya, for example, tells us about the plant biodiversity profile occupying different Himalayan zones (see Table 2) The nominator of this RfC could start with the Western Himalaya species, many of which are found in both India and Pakistan administered Kashmir. But he does not want to expand the article in that NPOV fashion. He wants only to expand the Kashmir valley, which is all in India, using (from what I have seen of his submission) poor sources. If you allow that, the Pakistanis will start the same thing and before long we'll have a mess on our hands, as we have had many times before. That is the problem of POV on these pages. They don't want to use IUCN reports, the Mammals Species of the World and other reliable sources to write an article on the Flora and fauna per se, much of which transcends man-made, arbitrary, administrative divisions; they want to use substandard sources to highlight the flora and fauna which belong to only one part of this disputed region. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• The opposer is repeatedly insisting adding content to the larger Kashmir region article and nothing should be added to its sub level articles including this one. It is like saying add Flora and Fauna to main country article and forget about its divisions and states which have there own identity. Let me remind here from the geographycal perspective the temperate fertile Kashmir Valley is totally different than those of other parts of the larger Kashmir region such as (hot and humid plains of Jammu, high altitude arid areas of Ladakh and Gilgit-Baltistan). As suggested there may be some features which are found in all areas of Kashmir, we can drop them here. Also regarding the sources as I said in the above section let me find better sources for those sections (Agriculture, Tourism, Arts and Crafts, Cuisine, Flora and Fauna) which have nothing to do with politics. MehrajMir (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd imagine that there would be some sort of arbcom policy on such a contentious topic. Is there any existing policy that could be applied here? Transcendence (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan That's the original case. There are amendments, etc. as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary, but I dropped the notification on your page. Also, since the OP doesn't seem to have been notified, did so on their talk page as well.--RegentsPark (comment) 22:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping there might be more specific guidance there but it seems like the a restatement of general policy. Transcendence (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Anything that belongs in the intersection of India and Pakistan is central to these sanctions. Generally, admins apply additional sanctions (I know that I did do that for Kashmir conflict related articles) as and when necessary. But, this appears to be purely a content question that doesn't seem particularly contentious (where should flora and fauna of Kashmir go, assuming it goes anywhere). Arb com doesn't rule on content so, as long as everyone sticks to content, I don't see any issues here. --RegentsPark (comment) 01:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• With the policies like WP:AC/DS in place with regard to Kashmir related articles, people are afraid to comment even on a talk page like this one. These policies are there to stop disruptive and POV edits but they should not be used to warn and keep away the most number of users. Moving on and as suggested by Fowler&fowler I'm taking it forward to Talk:Kashmir and closing this rfc.  MehrajMir (talk) 04:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Districts table

Toddy1, I don't know what you did in this edit, but the table is not any more fitting on the screen with the infobox on the right. So, there is a huge blank space at the beginning (on my laptop screen). Can you please make it fit? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Well it depends on the width of the screen.

The reason for greater width is that it has three more columns: (1) rural area (sq km) (2) urban area (sq km) and (3) source for area.

The version of 23 November 2020 that you found acceptable on your screen was 17.3 centimetres (6.8 in) wide.

With the current table, we can reduce the width by making some columns unsortable

• If no columns are sortable, the width is 16.5 centimetres (6.5 in).
• If only one column is sortable, the width is 16.8 centimetres (6.6 in).
• If only two columns are sortable, the width is 17.2 centimetres (6.8 in).
• If only three columns are sortable, the width is 17.7 centimetres (7.0 in).
• If all columns are sortable, the width is 19.4 centimetres (7.6 in).

Would it be best to have just the name of the district and the 2011 population as sortable?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The current table fits, but it looks a bit crowded. Do we really need the rural/urban areas? Is anybody really going to read through these numbers? The Srinagar district is probably the only one for which the distinction is important. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought the rural/urban areas was one of the most interesting features in the data in the sources. Because each of the districts is named after the district capital, having both the district name and the district capital is a bit redundant - but perhaps it is useful.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The population data for 2001 and 2011 need checking and correcting. In some cases they differ from the numbers in the sources cited in List of districts of Jammu and Kashmir. I will correct it at the weekend and add the source (2011 census J&K Annexure V. The problem is that the same figures are in tables in several articles, so each will need correcting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, the district capital can be omitted. Same for the repeated mention of "... district". That might make it a little cleaner. The rest is up to you. I don't actually care about this page. I just want it to be presentable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Does that help?-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it rolled down again :-( -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Clearly the problem is not just one of table width, but of width on a narrow screen.

I have made the table narrower. Does that fix it?

If it does not, I will remove some of the sorting options.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, it fits now. Thanks a lot! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Different versions of the table

Name of district Headquarters Area Population Total (km2) Total (sq mile) Rural (km2) Urban (km2) 2001 census 2011 census Anantnag Anantnag 3,574 1,380 3,475.8 98.2 778,408 1,070,144 Kulgam Kulgam 410 158 360.2 49.8 394,026 422,786 Pulwama Pulwama 1,086 419 1,047.5 38.6 441,275 570,060 Shopian Shopian 312 120 306.6 5.4 211,332 265,960 Budgam Budgam 1,361 525 1,312.0 49.1 607,181 735,753 Srinagar Srinagar 1,979 764 1,684.4 294.5 1,027,670 1,269,751 Ganderbal Ganderbal 259 100 233.6 25.4 217,907 297,003 Bandipore Bandipore 345 133 295.4 49.6 304,886 385,099 Baramulla Baramulla 4,243 1,638 4,179.4 63.6 843,892 1,015,503 Kupwara Kupwara 2,379 919 2,331.7 47.3 650,393 875,564 Total 15,948 6,158 15,226.4 721.5 5,476,970 6,907,623 Name of district Headquarters Area Population Total (km2) Total (sq mile) Rural (km2) Urban (km2) 2001 census 2011 census Anantnag Anantnag 3,574 1,380 3,475.76 98.24 778,408 1,070,144 Kulgam Kulgam 410 158 360.20 49.80 394,026 422,786 Pulwama Pulwama 1,086 419 1,047.45 38.55 441,275 570,060 Shopian Shopian 312 120 306.56 5.44 211,332 265,960 Budgam Budgam 1,361 525 1,311.95 49.05 607,181 735,753 Srinagar Srinagar 1,979 764 1,684.42 294.53 1,027,670 1,269,751 Ganderbal Ganderbal 259 100 233.60 25.40 217,907 297,003 Bandipore Bandipore 345 133 295.37 49.63 304,886 385,099 Baramulla Baramulla 4,243 1,638 4,179.44 63.56 843,892 1,015,503 Kupwara Kupwara 2,379 919 2,331.66 47.34 650,393 875,564 Total 15,948 6,158 15,226.41 721.54 5,476,970 6,907,623 Name of district Headquarters Area Population (2001) Population (2011) Total (km2) Total (sq mile) Rural (km2) Urban (km2) Anantnag district Anantnag 3,574 1,380 3,475.76 98.24 734,549 1,069,749 Kulgam district Kulgam 410 158 360.20 49.80 437,885 423,181 Pulwama district Pulwama 1,086 419 1,047.45 38.55 441,275 570,060 Shopian district Shopian 312 120 306.56 5.44 211,332 265,960 Budgam district Budgam 1,361 525 1,311.95 49.05 629,309 755,331 Srinagar district Srinagar 1,979 764 1,684.42 294.53 990,548 1,250,173 Ganderbal district Ganderbal 259 100 233.60 25.40 211,899 297,003 Bandipore district Bandipore 345 133 295.37 49.63 316,436 385,099 Baramulla district Baramulla 4,243 1,638 4,179.44 63.56 853,344 1,015,503 Kupwara district Kupwara 2,379 919 2,331.66 47.34 650,393 875,564 Name of District Headquarters Area (km²) Area (square miles) Population 2001 Census Population 2011 Census Anantnag District Anantnag 3,984 1,538 734,549 1,069,749 Kulgam district Kulgam 1,067 412 437,885 423,181 Pulwama district Pulwama 1,398 540 441,275 570,060 Shopian district Shopian 613 237 211,332 265,960 Budgam district Budgam 1,371 529 629,309 755,331 Srinagar district Srinagar 2,228 860 990,548 1,250,173 Ganderbal district Ganderbal 259 100 211,899 297,003 Bandipore district Bandipore 398 154 316,436 385,099 Baramulla district Baramulla 4,588 1,771 853,344 1,015,503 Kupwara district Kupwara 2,379 919 650,393 875,564 References

Kashmir Conflict mentioned

The page, though being a source of Geography of Kashmir Valley cannot omit the underlying Geopolitics of the vale in accord to Kashmir Conflict. The mentioning of Kashmir Conflict on this picture has also been issued in public interest.Similarly, As mentioned in the 'infox' as for example : " Union territory of India". The above references for either 'Kashmir Conflict' or 'Union territory of India' can't be overlooked. Musadiq Mushtaq (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Page* Musadiq Mushtaq (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The current consensus is to mention the so-called "underlying geopolitics" in the first-level administrative divisions. If you want something else, formulatea policy, and obtain the consensus at WT:INDIA and WT:PAKISTAN. You can't make up arguments willy nilly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Left a message for consensus at WT:INDIA. I believe, the reference of Kashmir conflict as a necessity on this page, since being a part of it's Geopolitical affairs. Musadiq Mushtaq (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The additional wording you wish to add to the article is as follows:

Kashmir has been a disputed territory between India and Pakistan since the partition of Indian subcontinent in 1947.

References

A few points:

• Punctuation should go before the citation not afterwards. MOS:CITEPUNCT
• The various quotations in the citations are pushing a particular point of view (POV) that is not mentioned in the text they are cited for. This is inappropriate.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it might have been inappropriate as you say but the Status Quo of the Region is designated as 'Disputed' by the United Nations. The infox of this page mentions Kashmir Valley as an union territory of India and neglects the fact of it being a disputed territory. Musadiq Mushtaq (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Stray citation to BBC article

The article used to have a paragraph in the lead as follows:

The Kashmir Division is a revenue and administrative division of the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir division borders Jammu Division to the south and Ladakh to the east while Line of Control forms its northern and the western border. The division consists of the following districts: Anantnag, Baramulla, Budgam, Bandipore, Ganderbal, Kupwara, Kulgam, Pulwama, Shopian and Srinagar.

References

When the article was restructured slightly on 4 Feb 2021, the citation was retained for the content it was placed next to.

But actually the citation is to a seven page BBC article looking at seven possible political futures for the Indian and Pakistan administered parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Web archive shows that it existed in October 2003. It does not support the content it was placed next to, so I am deleting it. If somebody thinks that the citation is worth retaining, please could they either put it next to content that it supports, or find an article that it is relevant to and use it there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement not supported by citation

The article had the following statement on 19 April:

The Himalayas divide the Kashmir valley from the Tibetan plateau while the Pir Panjal range, which encloses the valley from the west and the south, separates it from the Great Plains of northern India.

Unpetitprole changed this on 30 April to:

The Himalayas divide the Kashmir valley from the Tibetan plateau while the Pir Panjal range, which encloses the valley from the west and the south, separates it from the Punjab plains.

References

Neither version is directly supported by the citation. I will remove the citation and apply a FACT tag.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jammu Kashmir snowfall

Yes 110.44.103.62 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)