Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)

The article is missing a lot of necessary details.

The UT status has already been declared so the word proposed should be edited as the Presidential ascent has been already given to the bill. There are a lot of necessary details which have to be added to the article. The admins can give selective access if possible by way of validation and discussion on the talk page. As it would be better if someone who truly knows the facts is involved in the process. AnadiDoD (talk) 07:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@AnadiDoD: Source? The presidential order was for Article 370, which has been declared inoperative. Reorganization of the state into two union territories is a separate bill–Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, which has not yet received the President's assent. DeluxeVegan (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@DeluxeVeganFor your kind information the president gave his assent to the reorganization bill today itself. That's the reason I wrote this post. Its also a reason why I want admins to consider giving access to the article to people who can provide correct and validated info as I have witnessed that admins aren't aware of the facts themselves given the fast changing situation. The article need to be updated soon and the renundant information be removed. And for source you can search it on Google it's everywhere when if required I will also upload the order. And please refrain from commenting on issue you don't have information on.AnadiDoD (talk)

@AnadiDoD: We do have more information thank you think. According to The Gazette of India (link), the union territory will come into effect on 31 October 2019. On that date, Wikipedia will be updated to reflect the official status. DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Copy of Jammu and Kashmir article

Redirect to Jammu and Kashmir articles ChidanandaKampa (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope, the article is not a copy. Jammu and Kashmir is an article on the state, and this is an article on the proposed union territory. See this consensus which let to the article's creation and this deletion discussion. DeluxeVegan (talk) 08:21, 10 August 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) 19:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Single article for both state and union territory

The more work I do on the pages for the state and the future union territory the more I am beginning to think a single article could be appropriate for goth entities as there seems to be a lot of duplication between the two pages. I present a possible solution on my sandbox for such an article User:Cordyceps-Zombie/sandbox Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiPedia Being Political with “(union territory)”

Wikipedia is taking a political partisan, factually misleading stand by qualifying this page’s title with the words (union territory) in brackets. But not qualifying the former state of Jammu & Kashmir’s wiki page with a similar addition to its title. The words “(former state)” should added to the page detailing the former state and the words “(union territory)” should be removed from the title of this page. Otherwise Wiki would be treating India and this region in a discriminatory manner. Pediasher (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Change references to “state of J&K” to “former state of...”

There is mention of the “state of” Jammu and Kashmir in the introduction when the article says it was reconstituted. Please can that the

“the former state of Jammu & Kashmir..” Pediasher (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note tentative consensus wording for an RfC

Please note the tentative consensus wording for an RfC here for the phrasing of the lead sentences all sub-regions of the disputed Kashmir region. I have changed it to the consensus wording (see here and here), but I am on vacation, so I hope, others such as @Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Saqib, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: will keep and eye on these pages. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Saqib, RegentsPark, and Abecedare: Please also note that what goes for Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir also goes for Jammu and Kashmir (Union Territory) and Ladakh. In particular, the infoboxes, will need to have in the Indian-administered pages the same characterization as they do in the Pakistani-administered pages. Already, I notice, that drive bys and IPs are wreaking havoc on the Indian-administered pages, attempting to promote the conceit that they are indisputably Indian pages. Please help in keeping Wikipedia NPOV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The infobox on this page will need to say: Region administered by India as a Union Territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I see that the lead sentence to Gilgit-Baltistan has been broken on the basis of it being too long. This is problematic since the RfC wording for other territories follows the same sentence structure and as opposed to the other territories it establishes the territory simply as Pakistan administered in the first sentence at least. If the lead sentence is too long it should be broken up in all territorial pages and not specifically here. Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 November 2019

Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) → Jammu and Kashmir – Current status Naveen Sankar (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - These issues have been discussed at length at WT:INDIA in August and a few weeks ago, and more recently at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state). Nobody has provided any solution for what is to become to the several thousands of links that already exist in Wikipedia to "Jammu and Kashmir". Here is an example: Article 370 of the Indian constitution gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir—a state in India... This proposal would make "Jammu and Kashmir" refer to the current union territory! Entirely inappropriate.

The people that want renaming need to first go through the thousands of links and figure out which page they should point to. Secondly, what about the petitions pending in the Supreme Court? What if the Supreme Court quashes the whole thing? Who wants to spend the effort to change all those links back? At Wikipedia, we represent the language and terminology used in the reliable sources. Those thosands or millions of sources that refer to the old state will continue to exist. This is not something we do in a hurry. The current page titles and hatnotes work. There is no ambiguity. So, what is the purpose of this proposed renaming? What is being achieved? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support An generic argument that “thousands and millions” of links/sources continue to exist, cannot be made to oppose this change without stating exactly how many links and sources there are. This claim of “thousands” is wildly exaggerated and backed by Zero evidence by the person stating the argument. Such an argument cannot be the basis for making a factual correction to the most important page relating to what is simply Jammu and Kashmir today, the union territory.

Whatever a Supreme Court may or may not say in an uncertain date potentially years and decades into the future (considering how long legal procedures can be) cannot be an excuse by Wikipedia to refuse and ignore the factual and established legal position today.

All the other pages/links/references can gradually be changed over time based on feedback that will inevitably come as readers read those relevant pages. The stand of instead lazying away from this by simply saying that change has to be gradual, and actually refusing to take the first step in the direction of change - which is to rename this page - is deplorable.

Wikipedia should always stand in favour of the current factual position on this page by naming it simply Jammu and Kashmir. And continue relying on its tried and tested readers/ feedback providers to appropriately amend all connected links gradually. Not taking the first step of changing the title of this article is simply procrastinating and delaying the wheels of legitimate gradual change from turning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pediasher (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

How to find out what links exist to a page is something every Wikipedian should know about, at least those making move proposals or commenting on them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "Jammu and Kashmir" thus far does not in searches of scholarly books, scholarly articles, internationally recognized third-party newspapers (i.e. not Indian, Pakistani, or Chinese, the three countries party to the Kashmir dispute) or respected web sites, brings up the union territory. As long as that is the case, the unqualified term "Jammu and Kashmir" cannot be redirected to the Union Territory. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support move I don't know why this is a debate. Redirecting the page to a state that no longer exists in the geographic borders. The Indian govt has officially released an "updated" map. Plenty of new articles have been made on the J&K UT, during and since stating it as a UT. It's been days yet the redirect is still to a state which ceased to exist days ago, and the effective borders have been changed too. Redirect this page to the UT page and add the DAB at the top, as it is the current reality. If somebody wants to see the former state which included Ladakh and 290k more people but ceased to exist, they have the DAB on the UT page Hindian1947 (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hindian1947: You bolded "support move", but you argue for repointing the redirect rather than moving the target. There are two separate questions: (1) if a reader clicks a link that hasn’t been updated where should they end up? (2) what is the best technical approach to sustainably achieve this? Do we keep the flexible indirection of a redirect, or do we move the target with the rationale that it could always be moved again later? Pelagic (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose move, suggest support DAB. There is a neat symmetry in Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), Jammu and Kashmir (state), Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) that helps the reader to see that there are multiple articles, each with a defined scope. Redirecting Jammu and Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir (state) unfortunately gives the impression that it is the most current. Probably okay while the change is recent and its permanence uncertain. After most of the links to Jammu and Kashmir are re-targeted to Jammu and Kashmir (state), I would support changing the redirect to a disambiguation page. Pelagic (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I now see that I'm not original in suggesting a DAB. Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)#Disambiguation page.

I am not in principle opposed to a DAB page. But that proposal needs to come along with a scheme for correcting all the existing wikilinks to "Jammu and Kashmir". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, the simplest solution would be to have a bot convert all links pointing to "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Jammu and Kashmir (state)". I think its fairly certain that all links that intend to point to the union territory and princely state articles make use of the disambiguator "(union territory)" or "(princely state)". Perhaps a few geography articles may still link to "Jammu and Kashmir" instead of the union territory and require an update, but regardless of the change here, the links on those pages will remain outdated either way, and should be dealt with separately. Such a change would also be easily reversible in the long run, should the Supreme Court strike down the reorganization act. DeluxeVegan (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support The argument that a lot of links will have to be changed if this move takes place is not a valid one. WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY clearly states that long-term significance is a criterion for determining the primary topic, whereas "historical age" isn't. This implies that a topic can't be given preference just because it has been in existence for a longer period of time.

Also, this argument is a double-edged sword. Pediasher is correct in stating that it is backed by zero evidence as it will be completely wrong to assume that all internal links to J&K refer to the erstwhile state. Actually, I think that it's the opposite case: most of the links now refer to the UT. For example, Amarnath cave is a Hindu shrine located in Jammu and Kashmir, India. Such usages can be found in each article corresponding to a city/village/milestone in J&K. But since it's not possible to quantitatively measure the proportion of links that refer to the UT, I won't push this as my primary argument.

The truth is that J&K now primarily refers to the UT (feel free to do a survey of recent media articles to confirm this). Wikipedia should reflect this reality. Bharatiya29 19:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support There is only one Jammu and Kashmir in current time. Hence there is no need to add (union territory) with the name. The former one is Jammu and Kashmir (state), which looks correct.Sumit Singh ^T 04:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move, support dab: The union territory Jammu and Kashmir is certainly not the only primary topic for the term "Jammu and Kashmir" after just five days of its inception, and probably won't be for a few years. However, a disambiguation page makes sense, given that three historical entities have shared the same name. I feel the technical concerns that would come with the creation of such a dab can be addressed as expanded above. DeluxeVegan (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose move, support dab: Jammu and Kashmir High Court did not changed it's name --Sharouser (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sharouser: How is that relevant to this discussion? Bharatiya29 20:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support , all other states and union territories are named per a standard. Same is the case for other geographical identities on Wiki e.g. see Territories of the United States , Federal subjects of Russia where the articles are named per the place, and not with the political status of it in the country. I am a practitioner of MDM and data harmonization is a key tenet . Let Wiki be apolitical as it is, in good faith. Devopam (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Map

New Maps released by Indian government does not include Gilgit Baltistan in J&K UT but in Ladakh UT. So map needs change. The article should be reframed as well because Gilgit Baltistan is in Ladakh UT according to the map. -Nizil (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. The Survey of India seems to know its geography, but not its history. If this map is supposed to represent the pre-partition situation (which is suggested by the three districts shown for Azad Kashmir) then it needs to separate Gilgit and Baltistan. Baltistan and Ladkh were together as one wazarat (district), and Gilgit was a separate wazarat.

The Gilgit wazarat had two tehsils, viz. Gilgit and Astore. After the British leased the Gilgit tehsil, Astore was made its own wazarat as part of the Kashmir province, which would indicate that Gilgit was part of "Kashmir", not of "Ladakh". So, the colouring is all wrong.

Finally, the Gilgit Agency, set up by the British, controlled a whole bunch of autonomous subsidiary states, which were never a part of any wazarat or province. The present day map of the Gilgit area is approaching those very states, with tiny, really tiny, districts. This means that the sort-of-unification brought about by the British has now been undone. In any case, the Pakistanis were at least good enough to call the whole area "Gilgit Agency" for a long time. The irredentist India doesn't seem to have even that wisdom.

This map is way too embarrassing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

India Today claims

The Leh district of the new UT of Ladakh has been defined in the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Second Order, 2019, issued by the President of India,...

Can somebody find this order? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

2. लेह जिले के राज्यक्षेत्र—जम्मू-कश्मीर पुनर्गठन अधिनियम, 2019 की धारा 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट लेह जिले के राज्यक्षेत्र में विद्यमान जम्मू-कश्मीर राज्य के निम्नलिखित जिले सम्मिलित होंगे, अर्थात्:-- “गिलगिट, गिलगिट वज़ारत, चिलास, जनजातीय राज्यक्षेत्र और ‘लेह और लद्दाख’ कारगिल के वर्तमान राज्यक्षेत्र के सिवाय”।

2. Territories of Leh district.—The territory of Leh district specified in section 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 shall constitute the following districts of the existing State of Jammu and Kashmir, namely: – “Gilgit, Gilgit Wazarat, Chilas, Tribal territory and ‘Leh and Ladakh’ except present territory of Kargil”.

From here and more specifically this document. Your commentary is not needed. 117.240.46.67 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, can someone work on new maps? Large number of maps will need update. -Nizil (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: The official maps of the Government of India are not relevant to Wikipedia in all their aspects. In this instance, they are relevant for the new borders of Jammu and Kashmir within Indian administered Kashmir, but irrelevant for Pakistan- or Chinese-administered Kashmir. Gilgit, for example, has not been a part of Indian-administered Kashmir for 70 years, nor shown as a part of Indian-controlled territory in tertiary sources, such as Britannica. Again, the maps change only with regards territory within Indian-administered Kashmir. I hope this is clear. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: can you be specific about what you want updated? I hope you are not suggesting that the Wikipedia map of Ladakh should reflect the Indian government maps? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Fowler&fowler:, I am aware of the disputed map issue. I am asking for updates in India maps in which states and UTs are marked. All maps of India need to be updated for this change (with disputed territory guidelines being followed). I am asking for changes in map as we did when Telangana was created.-Nizil (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you are talking about updating political maps of India. Then WT:INDIA would be the right place to raise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)