Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2006–2010

Azad Kashmir and UNO

The definition of a sovereign state from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. According to the Convention, a sovereign state should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

is Azad Kashmir a member of UNO? vkvora 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

In International law, what is important is De Facto status and not De Jure status. Does Azad Kashmir have accredited diplomats to other countries and passports accepted by any country? the Montevideo Convention definition as quoted by you does not make any sense as my local village government also has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government with a police force and it can enter into relations with other villages, towns, states and countries. In fact New York city has intelligence agreements with several countries and posts its Police officers to gather intelligence in many countries with the cooperation of intelligence agencies of many countries. This is done totally independent of US federal efforts. Is New York city a country? --- Skapur 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

History not NPOV

The Indian version is very different from the Pakistani version. This article is currently written from a Pakistani POV. --- Skapur 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

there aren't too many lines here in this article so if you can point the exact POV lines it shouldn't be impossible to neutralise them. --Idleguy 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Indian viewpoint is that Pakistan forcibly through an invasion occupied "Azad" Kashmir in 1947 and that the area is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and not Pakistan Adminstered Kashmir. One way to neutralize this would be to state this point of view also. This differing viewpoint is the core issue that has caused several wars between India and Pakistan and directly lead them to arm themselves with Nuclear weapons. It is not an easy one to neutralize. --- Skapur 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

CONCERNS RECTIFIED IN PRESENT VERSIONCityvalyu (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you must tag it as POV then tag it in the proper place (at the top) or use the right tag if tagging only a section like this one. {{NPOV-section}}

Again, the POV in the History section is not neutral and has been flagged as such. Cassius1213 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A bigger problem here is that it's under "Azad Kashmir" and that "POK" redirects to "Azad Kashmir," rather than either the other way around (which I suppose would place a Indian bias on it) or some neutral name. The name of the article needs to be changed. 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CONCERNS RECTIFIED IN PRESENT VERSIONCityvalyu (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I read this article today and consider this badly organized apart from being tilted towards pro Pakistan views. I understand that one view or the other will be classified as India or Pakistani. This will be best to subdivide the complete disputed article clearly between Indian and Pakistani viewpoints. e.g. Each Section : Indian View : xxxx , Pakistani view : XXXX. Something like that.

Pankaj Kumar , Antwerp, Belgium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if we have an Indian POV section in Azad Kashmir article, then we should also have a PAkistani POV section in J &K article as well, as both are disputed for either countries. --Hussain (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The words AZAD means independent, but since all the authority lies in pakistan constitution the meaning does not support the cause of pakistan, also the Azad kashmnir is displayed in pakistan maps which is being displayed by pakistan in whole world as part of pakistan. But more importantly this Azad kashmir is not having the United Nations recognization (as Bangladesh is having).The actual name must be PAK (Pakistan Administered Kashmir). That would be appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vensudy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 September 2010 (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)

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)

To all above:

Just so you know this article is about 'AZAD' Kashmir, hence no king here! He might be the king of the rest but not Azad Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BhainsRajput (talk • contribs) 12:45, 7 February 2009 (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 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NO mention of HARI SINGH sighning Kashmir to India

I love this biast article.....It leaves out one great great important fact.....The prince of Kashmir, HARI SINGH, singhed Kashmir to India ARYAN818 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir

Please also see other articles related to Jammu and Kashmir, also there is one on Maharaja Hari Singh last Emperor / King of all Lands and Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. There is one on Karan Singh the Maharaja's son who would have been himself the present Maharaja / Emperor / King of all Lands and Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, today if his father had not stepped down from the throne and signed and thus given all his kingdom to India.

Atulsnischal 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Unilaterally annexed"?

That's not really NPOV - 2nd paragraph, it says that India "unilaterally annexed" the region in 1956. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.157.55 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Kshmiri Pandits?

It is also an open fact that Kashmir (historically) was a place with majority of people being KAsmiri Pandits.They were,are being exploited and threatened to leave kashmir to increase the dominance of (Pakistan loving) Muslim Population.And everybody knows that the king of Kashmir was willing to join kashmir in INDIA.Please mention all the facts in the articles instead of writing your own views on the topics.

Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravisankarvarma (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

what about the mention that hari singh was evil king who abused muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.167 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

picture not neutral: wp:undue wp:point wp:consensus violations

the picture in intro gives undue importance to the nation of pakistan... the picture of jammu and kashmir (a little below in the article page) can be a better neutral alternative..else add a picture with both India and Pakistan (and China if aksai chin angle is contemplated)..removing controversial picture for 3 reasons 1: undue importance to pakistan 2: to maintain neutrality 3:to avoid contradicting the statements below in the article that state that they are internationally recognised as disputed territory between india and pakistan..Cityvalyu (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, the article is already introduced by saying "This article is about the area administered by Pakistan. For other uses, see Kashmir region". I don't see how this map is in anyway a violation of the above, if it had included Ladakh, Srinagar and other territories administered by India you may have a point. You may also wish to have a look at CIA's map of Pakistan for a comparision,(the UNHRCR map may be a little bit more to your liking though - but not the small version). Most maps of Pakistan and India treat the Line of Control as the border as can be seen from the CNN map. Most reliable sources which are not a party to the dispute (and more importantly neutral), treat the LOC as the defacto border between the two states. Pahari Sahib 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

you have not addressed my concerns..point2: cia's view need not be neutral or with undue importance..wiki is not owned by pakistan or usa..britain, kashmir, china and india all have locus standi..why include the territory of pakistan to pok/azadk if ladakh aksai chin etc are left out?Cityvalyu (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

To follow on from your comments

• "wiki is not owned by pakistan or usa..britain" - I agree
• "cia's view need not be neutral or with undue importance" - I don't quite understand this bit, are you saying that the CIA is not being neutral here (what about CNN and the UN?)
• "why include the territory of pakistan to pok/azadk if ladakh aksai chin etc" because although they are claimed by Pakistan they are not administered by Pakistan Pahari Sahib 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

REPLY: cnn may not be neutral too..it is as neutal as geo tv or ndtv or bbc ..but UN is an organisation where no one can wield undue influence due to "veto"..un is probably a seperate entity that deserves as much importance as pakistan or india..

• pok is part of disputed territory of "erstwhile jand k princely province" ..so, being administered by pakistan is not reason to state it here(note that wiki is not an official pakistani website!! same applies to india too and hence both views given equal importance..both the claims are not inferior/superior to the other UNTIL FINAL RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE BY UNITED NATIONS...
• can't you see the similarities to south ossestian administration by russia backed s.ossetia govt there..wiki does not accept to addition of whole of russian territory in an image of south ossetia..the same logic applies here too and we cant accept the presence of the whole pakistan territory in a pok/azadk image..Cityvalyu (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

comparison table

Comparison table	South Ossetia dispute	PoK / azad k dispute
independence claim by the disputed region	yes	yes
Recognised by the international community as "part of the occupying nation"?	no	no
Recognised by international community as an "independent nation"?	no	no
Recognised by the occupying country as "independent nation" ?	no (russsia didnt recognise as on august 22 2008)	no (pakistan can not let go of the area as totally independent due to its vital importance to its survival)
Do the residents support the occupying nation?	yes (russian occupation welcomed by south ossetia..unofficial referendum held)	yes-i guess (assuming no major protest against pakistan occupation..no referendum though)
Does the other side accept it?	no (georgia calls them "invaders")	no (india calls them occupiers and the area as "pok")
Did the dispute displace original inhabitants?	yes-contentious (georgians forced to move out)	yes (hindus in PoK and kashmiri pundits forced to move out)
Is the disputed territory truly "independent"?	no (dependent on russia)	no (dependent on pakistan)
Was the region attacked by the country to reclaim administrative control?	yes (it led to the 2008 south ossetia war)	no (since india has so far not violated the loc to reclaim pok)
Was the occupying nation's "full" territorial extent included in the image of the disputed territory in wikipedia?	no (in fact the nation that didnt have control is mentioned:georgia)	i hope it was "no"..but THE present REVERTED version means the answer is "yes"(HENCE MY ARGUMENTS OF WP:POINT AND WP:UNDUE)

table created by me for clarity..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, any image that includes ALL of its neighbouring states or nations will be neutral..and could be consideredCityvalyu (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

article title of "azad k" about a disputed territory is biased towards pakistan ignores "pok" term

already notified in edit summ..revert also undiscussed

both "azad k" and "pok" are pakistan-coined and indian-coined terms respectively..The ideal neutral term will be "areas of former princely state of J&K under pakistan control"..since thats too long, added both versions for sake of neutrality (wp: point) and to avoid wp:undue bias towards pakistani view..PLEASE NOTE THAT NO COUNTRY INCLUDING PAKISTAN HAS RECOGNISED INDEPENDENT KASHMIR (i.e., azad k) Cityvalyu (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC) so restoring hasty revert..Cityvalyu (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The move was clearly going to be controversial, so why did you move it? And if you want to move it to something that fits your personal POV you should at least follow Wikipedia:MOS. Pahari Sahib 22:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

the previous heading per se is controversial..further the previou header violates wp:point, wp:undue very blatantly..move was well explained..so, am reverting your hasty revert..in any case typing pok or azad kashmir will redirect to the new header that i made considering wiki requirements of neutrality ..Cityvalyu (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

(Until your latest move), the article title had just reflected the fact that there is a political entity officially called "Azad Kashmir" - it may or may not be Azad but that is its official name. Perhaps if you were Tibetan you could argue perhaps that the People's Liberation Army hasn't really liberated anyone - should that mean you would move it to People's liberation Army / occupation army and trying to justify this move on the basis of WP:NPOV etc? Pahari Sahib 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• "azad kashmir" entity still exists just like "pok" entity..both links have not been deleted..instead they redirect to a neutral version that mentions both the ends of the spectrum describing a common place..
• "azad k" is a point of view of pakistan..

"pok" is a point of view of india..

neither deserves "EXCLUSIVE" RIGHTS to the article title page...

• india and the united nations dont recognise this "azad k" term..
• "pok/AZADK" somewhat similar to "Georgian province of south ossetia/ UNRECOGNISED INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC OF S OSSETIA" and its independence claims are similar too..no one in this earth is even prepared to recognise the terms(independent/azad) other than the friendly invader(russia in case of s.ossetia; united pre1971pakistan in the case of pok)..
• so diverting wiki to represent "pakistan ONLY"propaganda is unadvisable since india too has a locus standi over the disputed area (similar to georgian claim over south ossetia)..

so in the end, arguably "Aazad k" ALONE is as biased as the term "pok" ALONE..How can india or other nations even think of calling the disputed territory as "azad (independent) k" when it is dependent on pakistan and no country including pak not recognising the independence of kashmir.'pok' is how it is is known to non pakistani citizens and hence the article shall reflect a neutral view MENTIONING BOTH pok as well as azadk..(i again remind you to PLEASE NOTE THAT "AZAD KASHMIR" and "pok" Links has not been deleted--they redirect to this present name)Cityvalyu (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for a third opinion on this. Pahari Sahib 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

your decision is welcome..but let me remind other users that wiki does not support majoritarianism too..please ensure that the article is not hijacked to a biased "azad k" only title or a "pok" only title..please dont violate wp:undue and wp:point..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have some questions - in which language does Azad mean "free" - I looked it up in Wiktionary and there is forsooth one entry, but if the word is the same in Urdu (that is what I would like to know), then the current title is marked really by POV. Bogorm (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hindi/Urdu/Hindustani is essentially the same language, and آزاد and आज़ाद are identical. However, 'Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir' is a formal name of an existing administration. Its analogous to names like Free City of Danzig, one could of course discuss whether Danzig was really 'free' at the time but that doesn't warrant a rename. An editor might consider that the Democratic Republic of Congo isn't a democratic state, but it is still a formal name used. --Soman (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinions

• Naming of disputed areas is often as disputed as the areas themselves. I think that, on the road to solving this conflict, you ought to consider that, as mentioned above, the Tibetans might chose to call the People's Liberation Army the "Occupation Army", but that that is not the nationally recognized name for them, nor is it what they call themselves. That being said, it would certainly be of note if Tibetans referred to them derisively as the "Occupation Army", and you could make a good case for noting this near the beginning of the article (as it seems has been done here). Typically, in situations like this, you would want to use a well-known neutral name for the area (for instance if there were an official UN name for the disputed area) and, failing that, the name you would use if you were in the area itself as a resident or neutral visitor. In this case, it seems as if the proper title for the article for now is "Azad Kashmir", but that it should remain clear at the beginning of the article that the area is referred to by two names because of the conflict.∴Walkeraj 22:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

conclusion

since each and every point raised against the previous biased wp:undue wp:point violating title has not been opposed in the talk page, and since reverting to biased title not explained, title is reverted to represent both viewpoints..Cityvalyu (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

you talk total nonsense your indian hindu bias will be deleted freind go back to the mundir and spew your pro indian propaganda elsewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your impertinent Argumenta ad hominem following the matter-of-fact elucidations of the editor are verily ignominious. Bogorm (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

moves without discussion condemned

editors,

1. please don't violate wp:undue and wp:point
2. discuss and see talk page before making edits
3. please don't make any edits that violates the conclusions reached on talk..if you disagree, then make point by point rebuttals to the present state and use logical arguments that don't violate wiki policy to further new edits..undiscussed moves shall not last for long!! Cityvalyu (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You didn't get any support from anyone for your AK/PoK moves right? So you should perhaps apply your own advice to own action. AK is a long-running consensus on this article, the only npov way to handle the issue. Since Jammu and Kashmir relates only to the Indian state, its just fair that Azad Kashmir refers to the Pakistani administration. --Soman (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCON

Articles should have only one name. Perhaps the discussion should focus on which name (Azad Kashmir or Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) is more appropriate but including both names in the title is not an acceptable solution. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 03:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should call jammu and kashmir indian occupied kashmir as well if not Azad will remain this is final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I've requested that this page be put under temporary full-protection. It is obviously highly contested what should be put on this page, even towards the goal of neutrality. When what constitutes neutrality itself is contested, it's time to take a step back and have things mediated. ∴Walkeraj 15:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

some wise guy indian editors are ruining this page by pushing there biased indian nationalist veiws inside look at jammu and kashmir its very pro indian so get lost indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.70.25 (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa there, Mr. Anonymous-guy. Let's take a moment and relax. I understand you're upset, but there's nothing to be gained from name calling in my protection section here.∴Walkeraj 20:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

i suggest that we add a link to POK at the top of the title..and confine the text to ajk region only..that way it enables wiki to remove both india and pakistan from this disputed area (this article as well as the actual place)..may be that shall quieten nationality passions in this former unified british colony..admin can make this decisions117.193.38.121 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth is the neutrality of the history section being is questioned Walkeraj? The citation label has no place there seeing as the full reference is being put up at the end of the paragraph. By locking the page to any editing, shows this is an unprecedented attack on free speech. What are you afraid of? It’s funny the Jammu and Kashmir section has within it some of the most incredible fallacies, but isn’t locked, nor is the neutrality disputed.

attack on free speech seems to me whenever you speak hate and pro indian lies spew out onto this article its better if you keep your nationalist hindutva propaganda at home i.e India and stop vandalising azad kashmir pages jammu and kashmir is EXTREMELY pro indian so ill say this once keep out or ill do the same to pathetically biased Indian pages such as Jammu and Kashmir kapish.

I haven't the foggiest idea why the neutrality of that section is being disputed, as I didn't place that template there. In fact, I have never made any changes to this article. I've not questioned the neutrality of any particular section of the article, because I am not in a position to judge. All I have done is request that this entire article be protected, based upon my observations of politically-charged back-and-forth editing. Any outside observer could have made the same request.

Protection would not keep this page from being edited, but would require that editing be done by an admin (which I am not) to keep edit-warring from happening. Each request would then have to be mediated and arbitrated. Protecting a page is not an "attack on free speech", but rather an attempt to keep either side of the argument from using the article as a stage upon which to argue about who is right. ∴Walkeraj 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

can my dear indian editors tell whats so NPOV about this article you seem to be lying (again)86.153.132.156 (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

new name controversy

Why does Pakistan-administered Kashmir (also called Pakistan occupied Kashmir) link somewhere else? Its the same geographic place. all one needs is to add another history/background section. That is blatantly Indian POV, just the same as saying Indian Occupied Kashmir for J&K. Obviously there should be a part in the article saying what it is referred to as in India (not to mention maps of India within India, and, I imagine, Pakisan maps in Pakistan), but within the land itself, within Muzaffarabad it is called Azad Kashmir, so it's officially called that by the people and institutions there. Now trying to mention some fringe minority to get away with this would be like saying J&K shouldn't be so because the "fringe minority" there think it ought not to be. Lihaas (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

this issue has been discussed by dozens of editors and settled..you can refer archive of Pakistan occupied Kashmir for links to the concluded debate there..117.193.37.139 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That 'debate' (AFD) was speedy closed as it was going nowhere. Pahari Sahib 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What language?

"Azad Kashmir" — what language the word "Azad" is in? It should be mentioned. Hellerick (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

article is completely disputed

In the article it says kashmiris are in fear, But this is totaly wrong. Completely biased article based on observations of few India haters. Those portions should be deleted immedietly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somak sanyal (talk • contribs) 13:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In fear? Question is in fear of what? Answer India? You can not disguise the atrocities the Indian army commits in these regions, they are a fact. That is why these people are in fear. You don't speak for all these people, some may not be in fear, but the fact is quite a few are. you can not order 'India haters' to delete 'immediately' when you are not yourself in a neutral position. --BhainsRajput (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

introduction section - proposed change

Most of the content of the second and third paragraphs should be merged with the History and Government sections.Vontrotta (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Tags

I saw that some user had removed the tags of neutrality,citations etc however dispute hasn't been resolved, this is the act of vandalism,Adminstrators please take a note of this and I would like to suggest that why not this page should be renamed as "Disputed Region of Kashmir" because that would be neutral. Thanks and Regards --Shekhartagra (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Disputed tags

1.) The neutrality is not disputed. I have analysed it and accept it as fine and fit for wikipedia. 2.) The page has enough citations for it to exist, also there is not much need for citations as most is basic fact. 3.) The article does not require a clean up either.

Trust me, this is my professional opinion.

I can see your Indian, (i am too), but on wikipedia you can not let your pride cloud your professionalism, it is more than just obvious why you keep targeting this page with any petty reason to cause problems. It can be seen on the talk page. Stop asking administrators to help you to do this. Your very comments on renaming a whole article to a pro-indian name and claiming it to be neutral is evidence. It is not a neutral name as the people of the area have clear-cut chose government under the control of Pakistan. Wikipedia is not a website where you can play politics, if you have problems, then go and talk to the governments of India and Pakistan and maybe even the United Nations.

Stop messing around and BE PROFESSIONAL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BhainsRajput (talk • contribs) 10:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

--BhainsRajput (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

100% agreed with you, all these tags should be removed immediately. 119.153.37.178 (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Country in Infobox (Contradiction)

It has been written in Infobox that its country is Pakistan!! However it has also been written that its not a part of Pakistan constitutinaly!!! These both statements are contradictory becuase how can its country be Pakistan when its not a part of it constitutionly!!!!! This is amazing edit by some biased user. Any knowledgeable person please edit and make it correct or request any Adminstrator to do so.

Regards --Shekhartagra (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) --Shekhartagra (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

---

AGAIN!

Stop it! Stop picking on everything you can see to cause problems for this page. We know your pro-indian and that does not help. Stop asking for administrators to aid you in your pathetic political war over Kashmir which will maybe help you sleep at night and give you psychological rest. I am Indian too and i do also believe Kashmir (all of it) is India's but this is wikipedia; professionalism comes first! Don't get personal!

Changing things on wikipedia is not going to get us Kashmir!

(Administrators, ignore any silly requests by the above user. Completely unprofessional and for political gain. Maybe even think about further actions against the user.)

--BhainsRajput (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

since this page is read by millions of people if we dont argue then our side will be wronged more, we need to let the world know our cause and for that we need to argue.

There is no point arguing on this stuff and no question of professionlism regarding that and mind your langaugae and stop vandalasing this article and I am asking administrators to look what discussion says and not what you and I say!! I think you are smart enough to get the points. --Shekhartagra (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that is exactly what i was trying to enact, justice and professional wikipedianism. --BhainsRajput (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Language used in the discussion

I also request administrators to look after the language used by the above user in this discussion, I suppose that the language used by the BhainsRajput clearly reflects his/her mind state. Thanks and Regards, --Shekhartagra (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Shekhartagra (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The language clearly does show my mind state and that is not to allow pro-indian (like you) or pro-pakistani users to vandalise this article with wrong tags just because of your beliefs. Administrators, this person clearly has a 'thing' against this article and so does not act with NEUTRAL points of view, which is essential for any user that edits. Shekhartagra - wikipedia is nothing personal, all professional, keep it that way, changing wikipedia on articles to seem wrong and against India's adversaries is not going to gain Kashmir for India, it is only going to let readers believe what you think, when in fact they should be reading NEUTRAL FACTS. --BhainsRajput (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Language used by BhainsRajput is clearly offensive and indicates that this user doesnot want that tags of balanced neutarlity and other to be placed on this article as he has also shown by removing them without any concern towards numerous posts by users and without posting any information on talk page, he removed the tags and vandalised the article.
• I was not the one who had put those tags, they were already there.
• I didnt write anything against any Region or Nation.
• I just want that tags which were already there to be placed on the article as they clearly reflects the state of article.
• I never claimed and wrote that Kashmir is of Indians or something like that BhainsRajput has prejudiced this thing and without any reason saying that I have a "thing" against this article, now why would I be against some article,if I was I would have vandalised it like BhainsRajput did by removing information from it though I found contradictory elements in the article as for e.g In the infobox it has been written that its country is Pakistan and it has also been written that its not part of Pakistan constitutionly(this statment on the article lacks citiation), Now anyone who is reading if you can explain me how both the things can exist sametime. Isn't that contradictory????

A region(Azad Kashmir) not a part of a nation constitutionly but its country is that nation(Pakistan). Some one intellectual please come and explain this.

Thanks and Regards --Shekhartagra (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Quit making this something personal, i was purely being professional and you couldn't take it. The tags did not reflect the article and wrong tags to be removed does not need discussion. The fact that the you support these wrong tags says a lot about your stance. The tags can not be wrong on opinion, they were clearly wrong, any fool could see the history and see who put them their and from the history of the user were clearly biased and to cause problems for the article. The fact that at the end of your little wine you start talking about how you do not see how Azad Kashmir ceases to exist as part of Pakistan speaks for itself. Now that's contradiction. Stop running this like a campaign between Hillary and Obama, you know the facts, get used to them. If you really really want, the tags will be discussed, just don't go on so much about my language, there's nothing wrong with telling it like it is. --BhainsRajput (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Disputed Tags

This article has been revised thoroughly and one has come to the conclusion that the tags placed do not conclude the problems with the article. There ARE problems with the article and other tags have been put in place. The former tags did not suit the article due to their nature and were not attributed by professionalism following the rules and nature of wikipedia.

New tags have been put in place and whomsoever disputes may debate the tags here.

Regards,--BhainsRajput (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your this act is appreciated!but your language used in the previous posts except the last one represents you as a commander in a war field,I am not getting personal and stuff, you can ask any third party about the langauage used by you in discussion, just take a note of that. However I appreciate that you have put the tags now that is what is called professionalism. --Shekhartagra (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem brother. I apologies if I sounded harsh. And, its funny you should say that, lol, i'm a Bais Rajput and my ancestors (even my granddad was a general in the British Indian Army until he broke of in the Sepoy Mutiny...) were war like lol.

Peace anyway. --BhainsRajput (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another relevant tag has been added on the subject of neutrality. personally after studying the article i could find no problems but a mild notice has been put up so others can have their say on this. --BhainsRajput (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can give a fair reason for a pov/neutrality tag, I think the tag should be removed sooner rather than later as there are already enough of them on Pakistan/India related articles it's not really in the spirit if wikipedia. Khokhar (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reasons don't justify removal of tags, therfore tags needs to be placed again unless dispute is resolved. --Shekhartagra (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well than kindly point out why we have tags in the first place, I don't see any further dispute taking place regarding neutrality? do you? Looking at your user page it's clear you have a major bias against Pakistan... removing.Khokhar (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if we have no furthur discussion on the topic also we have not found any answers to the questions above, if we are not having furthut discussion we also have not got dispute resolved.. pages dont define somebodys view.. you too are from pakistan.. How come you are questioning about neutrality..Let the dispute get resolved..either help in resolving disputes by giving reliable references and logical answers or wait for people to go with correct methods. --Shekhartagra (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Consensus of almost every editor so far is that the tags should be removed, and with good reason as your previosuly expressed views (below) have been discussed in detail and already answered on numerous occasions.

"I saw that some user had removed the tags of neutrality,citations etc however dispute hasn't been resolved, this is the act of vandalism,Adminstrators please take a note of this and I would like to suggest that why not this page should be renamed as "Disputed Region of Kashmir" because that would be neutral. Thanks and Regards -"

If you continue your clear bias and continue to revert edits it will be considered vandalism.. as for not defining other peoples views.. well on my main user page you will not find a link to an article which sheds a negative light on another country, can't say the same about yours.... and many editors from Pakistan can and do write in other articles while observing a neutral stance, so I do not see where you are going with that comment..Please refrain from any further disruptive edits and kindly read the NPOV article to avoid similar issues in the future. Khokhar (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If I have links on my page which you think it sheds reputation of some country it your mindstate, I can't do anything about it, it's one of my favorite articles... and as far as vandalism is concerned I don't log off from my id and come with random ip address and write nonsense on some users page as you did... and stop doing that .. none of the user here says to remove those tags.. I am not the one who had put those tags.. I didnt remove a single word from the article.. I just want let third party come and solve the dispute .. Neutrality is disputes is reflected by what you are doing.. Vandalism you are creating on wikipedia by editing user pages by random IP and deleting Tags which reflects state of the article. --Shekhartagra (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And why would I waste my time editing your page? There's a million other users just like yourself with very similar prejudices but not all have paranoid delusions; as is your case, In any case I don't have the time or need to educate you all .. there are a number of editors saying the disputed tags are not required, try reading.. where as the only 'registered' user who thinks otherwise is you.. if you continue your disruptive edits you will be reported as a vandal Khokhar (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no other user except you and few other pro pakistanis who want to remove tags without Rationale. If you have proper reasons then come and delete these tags but unfortunately you have no reasons to do so and its funny that you are saying to report me as a Vandal, When I have questions and you don't have answers how come you are standing truthful?? Your insecurity about the region is expressed on this article, I could have edited the article and would have written appropiate and neutral statements but I know that would create conflict. Do you have answers to these questions?

• If its not part of pakistan constitutionaly how come its country is Pakistan?
• Why you have its name as Azad Kashmir? India dont reference it as Azad Kashmir, Isn't it biased view by pro-pakistani editors?
• There is an information on its government structure which I didnot find referenced!! Can you explain its government structure with proper citations??
• It is Pakistan controlled.. but are there any elections happened in this region so far??

Read this: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,463af2212,469f2dcf2,487ca21a2a,0.html It will help you finding answers to my questions... I have put a tag in unreferenced section for citations.. If you find citations which are unbiased and reliable only then remove the tag by adding citations where needed.. till then I am asking Administrators to check for Vandalism on this article by editors like you who dont give appropiate reasons and removing tags based on vote by 3-4 users. Again I am asking you if you have proper reasons for removing tags and can explain why those tags were removed ans shouldnot be there then come and edit..else don't vandalise or distribute false information --Shekhartagra (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• If its not part of pakistan constitutionaly how come its country is Pakistan?

Try reading the article.. it's very well explained and referenced.. the only reason the disputed IOK is a constitutional part of India is because it was annexed unilaterally in the 50's... but here's some further clarification if it is still required [1]

• Why you have its name as Azad Kashmir? India dont reference it as Azad Kashmir, Isn't it biased view by pro-pakistani editors?

That's the Official name, set by the Government of Pakistan, it's got nothing to do with Pakistani wikipedia editors...

• There is an information on its government structure which I didnot find referenced!! Can you explain its government structure with proper citations??

Add reference tags to that sentence or section, or perhaps try being constructive and update it with referenced information....

• It is Pakistan controlled.. but are there any elections happened in this region so far??

Yes.....[2]

I'll just add that you need to stop repeating the same clichéd misinformation repeated a million times already.. it shows prejudice and ignorance.Khokhar (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that what you call Reality???

Your citations are from pakistani media, how can that be a relaiable source????? Get some neutral source to prove your points..!! if those can be sources then see this too.. [3].. Do you have answers to these??? What I have been seeing from users like u is you people are trying to give a biased view just to hide the reality..!!! Get your facts right or provide proper citations.. --Shekhartagra (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So why not add all these tags to Indian occupied kashmir ? since all the references in that article are ALL INDIAN! please stop pov pushing and sort out the IOK article first before making absurd comments on Azad Kashmir p.s reality is that thousands of unmarked graves were found in IOK recently why not mention that in the IOK page? cheers Errormeek (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your sayings dont make any sense.. There is nothing called as Indian Occupied Kashmir..It is part of Indian constitution..If that is a part of Pakistan constitution why dont pakistan accept that.. well anyways there are so many flaws in the article..Remove them and the remove tags. --Shekhartagra (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please learn how to write correctly anyways your pov will not be allowed into this article your the only one screaming and shouting here about so called "pov" go try another hobby maybe cricket? Errormeek (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Errormeek is a Vandal editor on his way out, please bear with him for the moment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.197.58 (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

the tag which mentions

"This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications."

well there are 14 references in the article at the moment

4 of them are from Britannica (references # 8 to 11), 1 is UN resolution (UNCIP website) - reference # 3, 1 is from UNMOGIP ref # 5, another is from UN high commission for refugees ref #6, one is from South Asian journal ref #2

The UN High Commission for Refugees is not the source of the information cited - Freedom House is the source (the UN High Commission for Refugees has a database that contains many reports, including the Freedom House one). Original sources should be cited instead of databases that contain those sources. I proposed to change this, and I updated the reference so that it refers to the 2010 Freedom House report (where Pakistan-administered Kashmir is classified as 'not free' and Indian-administered Kashmir as 'partially free').Antigone10 (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence the majority of the references are from Brittannica and UN them selves, both are Reliable and Neutral. SO this tag should not be there. --Hussain (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

that the tags should be removed as proven by neutral references or it will justify similar tags placed on and starting an edit war in Indian administered Kashmir (Jammu and kashmir)page .I am not going to this but saying if it is npov to do this in this page then it is npov to do this on the other kashmir page.Thus the tags should be removed or for further discussion should happen to address issues about the page .,thanks Mughalnz (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mughalnz both IOK and Azad Kashmir, should be treated at par on wikipedia, in accordance with wikipedia NPOV policy. If Azad kashmir has NPov and bias tags, then same should be put on J & K page as well --111.68.96.117 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OKk!! Answer a very simple question-- India has deal documents with then Raja of Kashmir, also India has accepted Jammu and Kashmir as its State and in other laws as well. Has Pakistan accepted So called "Azad Kashmir" ?? How come its country is Pakistan then ?????? which is written in article and also Pakistan says it is not adminstrating this region!!! What a biased view clearly !!! Does that make any sense?? How come a state is a part of a country when not accepted officaly or consitutionly??? Answer this with unbaised facts. Regards Shekhar Tagra--Shekhartagra (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

and yeah I just realised one thing User Errormeek is a Vandal Editor and suspected sockpuppet of Nangaparbat which has been BANNED from Wikipedia!! and such users have been trying to present an UNBIASED VIEW.!!!!!!!!!!! --Shekhartagra (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

calm down man (remember just an article )

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46696/Azad-Kashmir# go to the site Pakistan believe the entire Kashmir region (including Azad Kashmir,[Jammu Kashmir]]) is disputed territory where it future decided upon the plebiscite to India or Pakistan after 1949 U.N ceasefire and several U.N resolutions initially backed by India (also by Nehru) latter drop it support and officially completed annexation of Indian administered Kashmir called Jammu and Kashmir in 1957 which called by Time as illegal ,Time a reliable publication used in thousands of Indian and Pakistani articles. So that is why Azad Kashmir is not officially part of Pakistan but it is unofficially part of Pakistan and administered by it . Also why Jammu and Kashmir( has most of Kashmir region population) is part of Indian constitution because it annexed it without holding Plebiscite ..http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,723783,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2739993.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1766582.stm http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,723783,00.html

Reasons of Pakistani Raiders on Kashmir

Isn't it due to the Kashmiri Mah Raja's intentions/decision to join india despite the fact that the majority there was of Muslims that some raids took place?

The fate of Kashmir was to be decided by its people, it was its peoples vote and choice to join him, having a Sikh ruler wouldnt empower him to force join Kashmir with india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babaji55 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

hey any do a section on the poonch revolt of 1947 0r Soth west jammu and kashmir revolt

pleaseMughalnz (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mughalnz if you have any information of the issue, please hare your knowledge for benefit of others --111.68.96.117 (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Antigone10, 22 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

A 2010 report by Freedom House determined that Pakistan-administered Kashmir was 'not free', while Indian Kashmir was 'partially free'.

Antigone10 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality debate once again

Even assuming that the debate about Azad Kashmir / Pakistan Occupied Kashmir / Pakistan Administered Kashmir cannot be solved, there is a distinct difference while referring to the Indian and Pakistani sides. In the opening section of this article, one is defined as India controlled and the other is referred to as Pakistani administered, as somehow implying that is one is controlling by force while the other is administering by will. How is this a neutral point of view? Georgiebest7 20:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiebest7 (talk • contribs)

Consistency

The opening paragraph has the sentence: "It borders the present-day Indian-controlled state of Jammu and Kashmir to the east", while the correct terminology used elsewhere is Indian-administered. This is hot topic rife with controversy, so I don't want to change anything without checking in with the administrators, but a small suggestion would be to change that part for consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.153.184.60 (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Status in Pakistani law

Please edit the use of word 'Azad Kashmir' since it is internationally accepted view ( Pl. see UN resolution on Plebiscite) that it is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. In 2008, United Nations High Commissioner for refugees says that so called 'Azad Kashmir' is not free. So please stop using Azad Kashmir.

Has Pakistan formally annexed Azad Kashmir? Do the residents vote for representatives to the Pakistani parliament? --Jfruh (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NO--Hussain (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case calling this portion of Kishmir as Azad(which means free) will be a misnomer.It is ruled by Pakistan but the people living there do not have voting rights.That is a shame.

Wikipedia uses the name "Azad Kashmir" simply because at present, that's the name by which it is most commonly referred to around the world, by other encyclopedias [4], by international newspapers, and yes, even by the United Nations [5].

Azad Kashmir has its own Parliament.President Prime Minister And Supreme Court, Doesn't it count for something? Earlyriser10 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling it by the name Azad Kashmir is not the same as saying it is "free", any more than calling the United States "the United States" is saying that the country really is united, or calling your daughter "Charity" assures that she is going to be charitable. It's a name, not a description. Obviously this name was chosen for political reasons, but agreeing to call it by that name is not equivalent to an expression of support for its politics. It is, at best, a minimal gesture of respect, a consequence of the idea that governments, like people, generally have the right to choose their own names.

In any case, if you want the world to stop calling it "Azad Kashmir", Wikipedia is not the place to start. Wikipedia's policy is to reflect, not shape, popular international usage. AtticusX (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2010 (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)

His Accession is disputed and so was his claim to throne Earlyriser10 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

This article has been fully protected pending discussion and consensus regarding the content and titles of Pakistan Administrated Kashmir and Azad Kashmir. I have created a centralized discussion thread here. All contributors to this discussion are expected to remain civil and to leave any nationalist rhetoric at the door, with the ultimate goal of creating (an) NPOV article(s) to fully cover the topic. Thanks, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 05:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Caknuck, it was getting messy. On reviewing this talk page and the noticeboard discussion, it appears that discussion has either completed or fizzled. Either way, hopefully now we can unprotect the article and things will be more rational. I've lifted the protection just now. Splash - tk 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan-Administreted Kashmir (PAK)

AJK, Azad Jammu and kashmir (free or Liberated kashmir) and Gilgit-Baltistan are the Pakistan-administreted Kashmir and Controlled By Pakistan since 194781.158.129.185 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was accepted that J&K, Jammu & Kashmir article will have a line which says, "Pakistan refers to this region as Indian-Occupied Kashmir (IOK)" Shovon (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)