Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir

separate page?

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

POK

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

More points in the article for NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed Article

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

History Section

I Have deleted the History Section Completely as it has lot of false information. Please re-write the history with facts with a NPOV

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

The merger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siddiqui 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

the history section seems too simplistic.the maharaja did not "decide to join india"...he was rather "forced to join"..theres hell lot of difference there..I hope the author makes necssary corrections to make it more authentic.

"learn history and please do come, he was not forced, but was afraid of losing kashmir to pakistan so he wanted help from indan forces to retreat pakistani soldiers, but according to UN, it was illegal to help other state(since J&K was an independant state at that time). so the maharaja of jammu and kashmir agreed merger with india and thus became a part of india. but nearly 1/3rd part of jammu and kashmir got occupied by pakistan, and india announced ceasefire since the rules of UN were exploited(Note:it was india's stupidity to announce ceasefire)and from then on the 1/3rd of kashmir is with pakistan and india is claiming that part of kashmir OCCUPIED BY PAKISTAN."

Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan

Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon. vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

================================================================::

Kashmir Is An Integral Part Of India. Pakistan intruded illegaly into the territory and retails a major chunk of it.What it call Azad Kashmir is nothing more than a pakistani colony on Indian land.

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

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

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

Thanks

08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Atulsnischal

Hi Deepak,

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

Atulsnischal 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Deepak

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

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

Best wishes

Atulsnischal 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi Deepak

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

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

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

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

Thanks Cheers

Atulsnischal 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Reply to Disputed Article

YOU FREAK, THE WHOLE KASHMIR BELONGS TO INDIA AND NOT PAKISTAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.163.88 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Source: The Hindu Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm

Atulsnischal 12:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

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

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

~~ Phrozenflame

Corrected Map description

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

JP Dutta movie?

What's the JP Dutta movie "LOC Kargil" doing in the "See Also" section? I am going to remove it unless somebody objects. Amit 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg

Image:Kashmir treaty.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE?

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

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

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

Merge

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

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

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

constitutional status

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

POV tag on sept14

1. Dispute over lead section

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

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

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

your version of the article begins

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

I think it should be changed to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. delete wrong image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reply:

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

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

Dont change status quo unilaterally

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

alternate proposal

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

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

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

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

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