Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:56, 2 May 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kashmir conflict article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

A lot of the discussion about disputes and problems with the article can be found at Talk:Kashmir.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Jammu and Kashmir High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Top-importance). Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

This article is within the scope of the Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Kashmir conflict was copied or moved into UN mediation of Kashmir with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Christine Fair vs Victoria Schofield

@TalhaZubairButt: you have replaced sourced content by Christine Fair, calling it UNDUE, and replaced by content sourced to Victoria Schofield, which dates back to year 2000. Why is one content UNDUE and another DUE? Please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Schofiield's account of pakistan's reasons to send forces into Kashmir was relevant to that paragraph. I don't see how Fair's statement is relevant to that particular paragraph and section. It would perhaps fit somewhere else. Doesn't seem to fit here.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Doesn't fit" is what you claimed in the edit summary. Simply repeating it is not a discussion. Why doesn't it fit? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Sorry, thats what I meant by its being UNDUE. That paragraph is supposed to be simply about Pakistani forces entry into Kashmir. Whereas Fair has made an analysis of the long term picture. Such long term analysis should be included elsewhere, perhaps as a note.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Christine Fair is saying that what happened in 1947 is the first instance of this `irregular warfare' syndrome. That theme will continue throughout the article because Kashmir conflict is where this irregular warfare is being practised, all the way till the latest Pathankot attack. Please don't expect us to brush this under the carpet.

Secondly, Victoria Schofield's analysis is badly out of date. Her being a close friend of Benazir Bhutto also dilutes the value of her assessments. She can never be used to override Christine Fair's analysis, which has more than a dozen favourable reviews from all parts of the world. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Being a friend of Bhutto does not make an academic's assessments weaker or less reliable. If this was the case, them many academic, including Christine Fair, could be seen in a less serious light due to their purported anti-Muslim biases, (which is very apparent from Christine's works).

And before pointing fingers, lets not forget India's role in guerilla (read: terrorist) warfare in Sri Lanka (LTTE) and East Pakistan (Mukti Bahini). Its easy to point fingers without introspection.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The extent to which the source is independent of the subject determines WP:THIRDPARTY. I am not saying that everything sourced to Schofield should be thrown out. But, clearly, when she makes statements that go against evidence, those statements must be thrown out.

And, you should avoid WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUMy debates. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Jinnah-Mountbatten talks

In the section on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, there was a passage that covered the Jinnah-Mountbatten talks. It read as follows :

On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an `impartial reference to the will of the people'. Jinnah rejected the offer, thereby "squandering his leverage" according to the scholar A. G. Noorani. Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations `likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'. (142 words)

TalhaZubairButt expanded to the following, which I tagged after review:

On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an `impartial reference to the will of the people'. Jinnah rejected the ofer, thereby "squandering his leverage" according to the Indian scholar A. G. Noorani.

From the perspective of many authors, Jinnah was also convinced that a plebiscite under the supervision of the Indian Army would be sabotaged. Instead, he proposed an immediate and simultaneous withdrawal on both sides, including the Pakistani military and their allies, Pathan tribesmen, and the Indian troops. Afterwards, he suggested that the leaders of India and Pakistan should take control of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and sort out all matters including the arrangement of a free and fair plebiscite. Hearing the proposal, Mountbatten told Jinnah that he needed the consent of Nehru and Patel. Thus the talks ended and the dispute remained unresolved.

Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations `likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'. (303 words)

After finding a better source, I rewrote the problematic passage as follows :

On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an `impartial reference to the will of the people'. Jinnah rejected the ofer, thereby "squandering his leverage" according to the Indian scholar A. G. Noorani.

Jinnah felt that with the Indian troops in Kashmir and Sheikh Abdullah in control, people would not have the courage to vote for Pakistan. When Mountbatten countered that the plebiscite could be conducted by the United Nations, Jinnah again rejected the proposal, saying the two Governors General (Mountbatten and Jinnah) should conduct it instead. However, this was not constitutionally tenable. According to Sir George Cunningham, the governor of N.W.F.P., Jinnah rejected UN-governed plebiscite because he was optimistic about the invasion succeeding and he felt that Pakistan was likely to lose the plebiscite in the prevailing circumstances.

Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations `likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'. (283 words)

However, TalhaZubairButt expanded it again as follows :

On 1 November 1947, Mountbatten flew to Lahore for a conference with Jinnah, proposing that, in all the princely States where the ruler did not accede to a Dominion corresponding to the majority population (which would have included Junagadh, Hyderabad as well Kashmir), the accession should be decided by an `impartial reference to the will of the people'. Jinnah rejected the offer. According to Indian scholar A. G. Noorani Jinnah ended up squandering his leverage.

According to Jinnah a plebiscite was unnecessary when it was quite clear that states should accede according to their majority population. Jinnah was willing to urge Junagadh to accede to India if India gave him Kashmir. Mountbatten refused to forego Kashmir's accession to India unless decreed by the people. Jinnah, on the other hand, refused to accept any formula if it included Hyderabad; which was the state which wanted to accede to neither Dominion. According to Jinnah, he could not be party to coercion.

Jinnah demanded that both sides withdraw their troops simultaneously. Jinnah felt that with the Indian troops in Kashmir and Sheikh Abdullah in control, 'the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan'. When Mountbatten countered that the plebiscite could be conducted by the United Nations, Jinnah again rejected the proposal, saying the two Governors General (Mountbatten and Jinnah) should conduct it instead. Mountbatten said this would not be tenable according to his Constitutional position. Jinnah's rejection of a plebiscite was driven by two considerations. Jinnah hoped that the tribal invasion may still succeed and he could then be able to swap Junagadh for Kashmir and also secure Hyderabad's independence. This proved to be a major miscalculation. According to Sir George Cunningham, the governor of N.W.F.P., Jinnah rejected UN-governed plebiscite because he feared that Pakistan might lose the plebiscite in the prevailing circumstances due to the Pathan invasion. Jinnah was determined that if a plebiscite was to be held at all it should be held in circumstances favourable to Pakistan. Thus, Jinnah wanted Indian troops to withdraw and Sheikh Abdullah to be unseated. India did not accept Jinnah's demand of removing Sheikh Abdullah, because India feared that its own political base in Kashmir would shrink rapidly.

Prime Ministers Nehru and Liaquat Ali Khan met again in December, when Nehru informed Khan of India's intention to refer the dispute to the United Nations under article 35 of the UN Charter, which allows the member states to bring to the Security Council attention situations `likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace'. (638 words)

I think this is rather too much coverage for 4 hours of failed talks, in an article covering 60 years of history! The basic facts are still the same. India offered Plebiscite. Pakistan rejected it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Noorani 2014, pp. 13–14. sfn error: no target: CITEREFNoorani2014 (help)
2. ^ Schofield 2003, pp. 67–68. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSchofield2003 (help)
3. ^ Bajwa, Farooq (2013). From Kutch to Tashkent : the Indo-Pakistan war of 1965. London, England: Hurst. ISBN 1849042306.
4. Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 111, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7
5. ^ Raghavan, Srinath (2010), War and Peace in Modern India, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 112, ISBN 978-1-137-00737-7 Cite error: The named reference ":3" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

Discussion

@Kautilya3: If you leave your natural bias aside, you'll realise upon close reading that Pakisan did not completely reject a plebiscite in itself. It simply wanted it to be held in circumstances most favourable to it. Or, as an alternate option, exchange Junagadh for Kashmir whilst securing Hyderabad's independence (Jinnah wanted no part in Hyderabad's coercion, where we know India invaded in violation of the StandStill Agreement). India also rejected Jinnah's proposals of troops/Shk. Abdullah removal because India knew that if Sheikh Abdulllah was removed, India would also stand no chance in a plebiscite.

Take this from a Kashmiri, Kautilya, India would have lost a plebisite with Sheikh Abdullah out of the picture. He was vital to any support India could have from Kashmiri Muslims. Kashmiri Muslims blindly loved Sheikh Abdullah due to his fighting for our rights against the Dogra regime and we would have blindly obeyed him. However, if he was not in the picture, Kashmiri desire would either be for Pakistan or our own independent country (this would be the first option for most). And it didn't take long after his death for our desire to be expressed. He was the anchor that kept Kashmiris from rebellion for decades. As soon as he died, Kashmiris became more and more active in plebiscite movements. Finally leading up to the 1987 elections.

And personally I don't see how Jinnah's 'refusal' for plebiscite gives any moral authority to India. Even till the 1950s, Nehru claimed he was committed to a plebiscite until Pakistan joined CENTO. He used Pakistan's entry into CENTO as an excuse to backtrack from his words. I don't think Nehru was sincere in the first place. The first chance he got, he took it, by calling Pakistan's CENTO membership an act of hostility and an expression of insincerity in resolving the Kashmir probllem.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that lesson in Kashmiri politics (and I mean that sincerely). But the problem on hand is that you have expanded 142 words into 638 words, and the resulting text is completely unwieldy and loses focuses. This is not the way to write an encyclopedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt: No response for several days. I will reset the text back to the 283 words version. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kauilya3: I have to say, I didn't take your preceding question as an unrhetorical question. So that is my reason of not responding. As for why it deserves expansion, then we could ask many questions. Like why do the Jinnah-Mountbatten talks need mentioning at all under the 1947 war section? Were the talks previously part on this section?

All in all, if Jinnah's refusal of plebiscite is going to be mentioned due to his fear of losing the plebiscite, then as per WP:BALANCE India's refusal of his conditions for a plebiscite also count, as India also feared losing the plebiscite if Jinnah's conditions for accepting Mountbatten's offer were followed.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

My original 142 word text never talked about why Jinnah refused plebiscite. I don't think it is necessary in a high-level summary. Facts need to be covered, not interpretations. (If interpretations need to be given, George Cunningham's interpretation, who knew all the discussions first-hand, should take priority.) Jinnah's objection about Sheikh Abdullah had been countered by Mountbatten that the plebiscite could be supervised by the UN. Jinnah still refused. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think I am engaging in rhetoric. I have raised an objection to your edit, which I thought you would address. But your solution seems to be to edit-war . This is not the way to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: 1. Jinnah made a counter-proposal to Mountbatten which would have resulted in a plebiscite had India accepted it, but India refused because it knew that without Sheikh Abdullah, it had no leg to stand on in Kashmir. If you are so keen on including Jinnah's refusal of plebiscite, then its only fair that India's behaviour at the time also be mentioned. Its against Wiki's balance policy to just mention that Jinnah refused a plebisciteTowns_Hill 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

2. You do now WP:OWN wikipedia or this article. I can expand this article andmake three separate relevant sections if I want. In any case, I will be looking into the issue of whether some sections like 'Problems before Plebiscite' and 'US Presidents on Conflict' are WP:UNDUE. They seem irrelevant to me and more like some kind of propaganda explaining India's failure to take Kashmiri self-determination into account. As this is abt Kashmir, this page should give the highest priority to the dominant Kashmiri version of events, not the Indian one. Kashmiris aren't interested in India's fascinating reasons for not holding a plebiscite. And its the Kashmiri opinion which matters the most. Towns_Hill 06:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TalhaZubairButt (talk • contribs) Towns_Hill 06:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 what seems to be the problem? I thought TZB's points are valid enough for an edit, why are u not even debating/countering them? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have stated the problem quite clearly at the outset, almost a month ago. To repeat, I think this is rather too much coverage for 4 hours of failed talks, in an article covering 60 years of history!

To move towards resolution, Talha Zubar needs to at least state, what length of coverage he thinks is acceptable for the topic, what are the salient facts to be mentioned etc. Instead, he is engaging in WP:OR and WP:BATTLEGROUND comments, such as "would have resulted in a plebiscite had India accepted it", "India refused because...", "it had no leg to stand on", "You do not own Misplaced Pages" and what not. Such discussion is simply not productive. I almost felt like taking this to WP:AE this morning. For now, I have asked RegentsPark to advise him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

There is also a full article on Jinnah-Mountbatten Talks (which I was surprised to hear about). So, enough detail can be added there. This article is not the place for it. We are talking about one round of talks that lasted 4 hours. This, compared to at least 3 meetings between the Prime Ministers in 1947, and almost a decade of talks with UN mediation etc. Talha Zubair's coverage is simply out of proportion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown intervention

@SheriffIsInTown: I don't think your intervention is helping. The WP:STATUSQUO is this version, before any of this expansion happened. I marked it right at the beginning of this discussion, which I opened on 5 April. Anyway, I don't particularly care what version is put up for the moment. What I want is for meaningful discussion to happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 you do not like to debate, you do not intervention. How would you like this article to be edited? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: You haven't replied. You reinstated TalhaZubairButt's version that I have objected to. That is not the statusquo. In effect, you are edit-warring. I have reverted it back to the true statusquo. Everybody, please discuss the issue I have raised above. As per RegentsPark edit restriction, consensus should be reached before touching this section.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?issue_id=36&article_id=997
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/024/1997/en/15411f3b-ea77-11dd-b05d-65164b228191/asa200241997en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/pdf/Charts2006.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kashmirreader.com/geelani-reminds-modi-of-nehrus-plebiscite-promise-11394

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:

• An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
• A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
• A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
• Pinging @Bishonen, EdJohnston, SpacemanSpiff, Doug Weller, and Floquenbeam: to take a look and see if anyone needs to be cautioned/blocked right now and to help keep an eye on things.

--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise

regentspark I am adding this text to the article. The single concern raised about the previous text is that "it was too much text for such a small event", therefore I have reduced the size of the text by almost half, and tried to keep the relevant information in place.
According to Jinnah a plebiscite was unnecessary and states should accede according to their majority population. He was willing to urge Junagadh to accede to India in return for Kashmir, however he rejected involving Hyderabad and refused to be “party to coercion”. Jinnah demanded simultaneous troop withdrawal for he felt that 'the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan' in the presence of Indian troops and with Sheikh Abdullah in power. Mountbatten proposed that the plebiscite be conducted by the United Nations, but Jinnah; hoping that the invasion will succeed and he will be able to swap Junagadh for Kashmir then secure Hyderabad's independence, again rejected the proposal; stating that the Governors Generals should conduct it instead. However, Mountbatten deemed it untenable according to his Constitutional position and India did not accept Jinnah's demand of removing Sheikh Abdullah, because she feared that her own political base in Kashmir would shrink rapidly. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, you can add anything to the page provided you post an explanation on the talk page (as you do above) and stick to 1 revert so no worries.--regentspark (comment) 15:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

He didn't "add" new text. He replaced the statusquo text without achieving consensus first. As far as I am concerned, it is a partial revert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 so you have no problem with my addition except that it is a partial revert? Well I have not reverted in the last 36 hours I think and I am allowed to revert as per 1PR. So problem solved I guess. @regentspark feel free to take down that 1PR etc as it was mainly due to this problematic text, OR you can keep it in place "just in case". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have lots of problems with it, but I am not getting into it yet. The edit restrictions that RegentsPark impose are in addition to the normal processes of discussion and resolution as in WP:BRD. Your effort to revert before reaching consensus contravenes WP:BRD. It is a continuation of the edit-war. I am glad that you tried to make progress, but you should not make mainspace edits until consensus is reached. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 The admin says the edit is Ok. So it is ok. Yous claim that Your effort to revert before reaching consensus contravenes WP:BRD. It is a continuation of the edit-war. is pretty much exactly what regentspark has forbidden, so please do not assume bad faith again. Now what problems do you have with the actual text? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, reading through the comments above, the new text is addressing a concern (length) expressed in the discussion and that's a reasonably way to proceed forward. The reality of Misplaced Pages is that we move forward with content only when there is content to discuss, so I'm not keen to put a stop to all movement on the page. Unless there is a previous edit that is substantially the same as this one (in content as well as in length), this is fine. Of course, conversely, that should not stop you from discussing the nature of this content, suggesting wording changes or giving reasons why you think it should be reverted. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

RegentsPark I have started a proper discussion without making any reverts almost a month ago. The questions I have raised haven't yet been aswered. The way to make progress in the dispute to first answer the questions and issues I have raised here, which are still unaswered. The editors need to first state what length of the text is appropriate and explain why. As per WP:BALASPS, no aspect of the subject should be made look more important than it is. They also need to state what are the salient points that need to be mentioned and explain why. We can have a discussion about each of them. It is premature to be making mainspace edits.

The paragraph that I had added (the 283 word version) is already a compromise. My preference would be not have this paragraph at all. So, proposing yet another version and calling it a "compromise" doesn't address the concerns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is the 283 word version? On the talk page or in the article?--regentspark (comment) 16:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 you are saying coverage is out of proportion and that you added a 283 word version. Well first of all the text I added is only 151 words, and secondly if I look at your revert even then there are only 50 more words added. So you are basically giving arguments over 50 words. Now if you can please tell me how you can claim that mere 50 words in an article of more than 17 Thousand words are undue then we can move forward. Furthermore your claim that a mere "four hour talk" should not be given "this much space" (fifty extra words) is not understandable, for we write about the gravity of events not there temporal occurrence. There is a Huge article on the Hiroshima attack, but it occured within a matter of hours. So just as the Hiroshima article covers various aspects eg planning etc, these 50 extra words give the readers the reasons why Jinnah was doing what he did. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I have put the four versions being discussed at the top of the section above titled Talk:Kashmir conflict#Jinnah-Mountbatten talks. The 283 word version is the 3rd one. This is also the version I reverted to in the mainspace this morning. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the proposed text

Given that we are already stretching the discussion of these talks beyond what is acceptable, let us look at point mentioned and see what its importance is.

• According to Jinnah a plebiscite was unnecessary and states should accede according to their majority population.

This was a position taken at that point in time, but the world has seen the worth of a plebiscite. So, in the long run, this position is not important at all.

• He was willing to urge Junagadh to accede to India in return for Kashmir, however he rejected involving Hyderabad and refused to be “party to coercion”.

India proposed a general principle, which wasn't accepted by Jinnah. I don't think there is need to go into the details.

• Jinnah demanded simultaneous troop withdrawal for he felt that 'the average Muslim would never have the courage to vote for Pakistan' in the presence of Indian troops and with Sheikh Abdullah in power.

Simultaneous withdrawal is a useful point because it represented the Pakistan position for a long time. But this and the Sheikh Abdullah issue shouldn't be clubbed together in this confusing manner.

• Mountbatten proposed that the plebiscite be conducted by the United Nations,

Important point and should stay.

• but Jinnah; hoping that the invasion will succeed and he will be able to swap Junagadh for Kashmir then secure Hyderabad's independence, again rejected the proposal; stating that the Governors Generals should conduct it instead.

Can stay.

• However, Mountbatten deemed it untenable according to his Constitutional position

Can be shortened. The fact that the Governor General doesn't have executive powers in the Westminister model is well-established.

• India did not accept Jinnah's demand of removing Sheikh Abdullah, because she feared that her own political base in Kashmir would shrink rapidly.

This is OR. Jinnah neither demanded Sheikh Abdullah's removal nor did India reject it. This sentence should go.

I am stating my comments in good faith. But this discussion doesn't override the more important issue of deciding what length is acceptable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Allow me to respond to the five issues that you have raised.

1. You say about the plebiscite that "This was a position taken at that point in time, but the world has seen the worth of a plebiscite. So, in the long run, this position is not important at all". I fail to see any solid "argument" in this. The "world" has seen the worthiness and unworthiness of a lot of things, removing them from Misplaced Pages just because the "world has seen their true worthiness/unworthiness" goes against our core policies. We never ever remove something just becasue the "world" found out its worthiness. Can you quote which policy you are following here? Be kind enough to quote the exact phrases which support the argument that "if the world has found a statement to be unworthy, it will be removed from wikipedia".
2. You say about the proposal that "India proposed a general principle, which wasn't accepted by Jinnah. I don't think there is need to go into the details.". There are two very basic problems with this. Firstly this is POV. As per NPOV we mention both sides that India wanted to keep things focused on Kashmir, Jinnah wanted to include others. The second, and the bigger, problem is that there was no "general principle" proposed by India, as the very definition of a general' principle means that it will cover more than one state, however India was actually against the general principle, it was Jinnah who wanted the general principle.
3. You say that simultaneous withdrawal and Shiekh abdullah should not be "clubbed together". To be frank I cannot make head or tail of this argument of yours. Why exactly should they not be "clubbed together" when Jinnah mentioned them together and we have an RS that mentions them together? What exactly is confusing in their being mentioned together?
4. You say that the sentence However, Mountbatten deemed it untenable according to his Constitutional position should be shortened because The fact that the Governor General doesn't have executive powers in the Westminister model is well-established. I disagree on grounds of common sense. It is common sense to assume that the average wikipedia reader has not read about the intricacies of the Westminister model. And even if he has, why can't we include it just for those who have not? When did we get so picky about including new things?
5. Your comments about the sentence India did not accept Jinnah's demand of removing Sheikh Abdullah, because she feared that her own political base in Kashmir would shrink rapidly. are beyond me as well. I would like to direct you towards the policy at WP:OR. You can clearly read that if an opinion is presented in a WP:RS then merely reporting that opinion with the change of a couple of words is never WP:OR. So this is what I did. The sentence in the book is Sidelining Abdullah would be a self confounding move. Not only did he command the greatest following in the valley, he had all along supported accession to India. If he was removed at Pakistan's demand, India's political base in Kashmir would rapidly shrink .

Please be kind enough to reply to these counter arguments when u have time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The basic problem is that the proposed paragraph is too long and violates WP:BALASPS. So we need to pick the most important bits from the coverage. When negotiations are carried out, all kinds of points are raised and demands made. Most of them fall by the wayside. The points that we mention in a summary are the points of lasting value.

1. Jinnah's argument that a plebiscite was unnecessary is not of lasting value. So it should be dropped. (This is not an article on Jinnah, it is on Kashmir.)
2. I have no idea what you are trying to say. The general principle is reproduced on page 110 of Raghavan's book (which is on Google Books) and the entire document is reproduced in Noorani's book. But Jinnah didn't want to include Hyderabad. So the discussion moved on. Why Jinnah didn't want to include Hyderabad is not relevant to this article. So out it goes.
3. "Simulateneous withdrawal" was a demand made by Jinnah. The Sheikh Abdullah issue is an explanation he offered as to why he didn't want a Plebiscite. The two should not be confused. There was no demand regarding Sheikh Abdullah, at least at this stage. There was such a demand later.
4. "Mountbatten deemed" makes it appear as if it is his personal opinion. It was the constitutional position.
5. The sentence in the book talking about "self-confounding move" etc. is the author's own observation. It represents neither a demand, nor a response. I notice that the author uses the term "demand" here, but he never states that such a demand had been made. I think "wish" would have been better term to use than "demand" here. (That paragraph cites a communication-footnote 33-from the UK High Commission to the Commonwealth Relations Office. So it is possible that these ideas were discussed with the British Government. They are not part of the Jinnah-Mountbatten talks.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 You have replied to none of the points I raised and have made some more arguments on your own, when you are arguing about something plz do not change your position again and again it causes the debate to become cyclic with no resolution. @regentspark can you be kind enough to give your input in the debate as well, it is kinda frustrating that every time one argument is broken another one is presented. Why can't all arguments be presented at once? Anyway, KT I will just give you two positions which you have chosen please pick one, or confirm that you are using both, but this should be it. If every single time your argument is broken you come up with another argument, the debate will continue to infinity. So please make your position clear about the following.

1. The statement about plebiscite. You first said that this was not needed because "world" had found out that the plebiscite was worthwhile. I countered by saying that we at wikipedia never remove information just because the world thinks that it is "worthy" or "unworthy". Now instead of debating my comment you have changed your position to state that this fails WP:LASTING. To counter this I present two arguments. First of all this does have lasting value as Jinnah's refusal to hold a plebiscite was the catalyst for further events. This is exactly what lasting effect means, that one event acts as a catalyst for another and so on and so forth. My second argument is that even if we, for the sake of argument, accept your surmise, even then this statement cannot be removed as WP:LASTING is a secondary policy and the first and foremost policy is WP:GNG which this event/statement satisfies to the fullest. Now please debate on these points only before moving on, for if we just move on to "the next" point before one point is decided we will not be doing anything, anytime soon.
2. The "General principle". You said that there was no need to "go into details". I countered by saying that the very phrase "general principle" means a "principle" that covers more than one area. For example you can say that the general principle is "Plebiscite should be arranged to ascertain the wishes of a populace", but the "general principle" can never ever mean that "plebiscite should be arranged in Kashmir only and not in other areas". Now instead of providing any argument to counter this and instead of giving any proof a "general principle" can pinpoint one specific thing, you have changed your claim to say that "The general principle is reproduced on page 110 of Raghavan's book". Well the page 110 does not contain the words general principle so it is your WP:OR to call it a general principle. Now in your next reply please choose which of these arguments you are going to go with. Either pick both or pick one, and we go from there.
3. Troop withdrawal and Sheikh Abdullah. You first said that they should not be clubbed together, I responded by saying that the Book has clubbed them together and Jinnah mentioned them together". Now instead of countering my argument and saying anything about why we should not follow a reliable source you have changed your opinion to state that "Simultaneous withdrawal" was a demand made by Jinnah. The Sheikh Abdullah issue is an explanation he offered as to why he didn't want a Plebiscite. I would like to say that what you are saying is your take and your opinion. It is therefore WP:OR. Yes it may be a fact that troop withdrawal and demand for Abdullah resignation were some days apart but the WP:RS has spoken of them together so they should stay together. Furthermore you have not given any insight as to how you want to "separate" them seeing that you are the one complaining about the paragraph being too long. So here too, please pick one argument, or pick both, but do not change your argument again and again.
4. Mountbatten. You first said that this should be removed as "The fact that the Governor General doesn't have executive powers in the Westminister model is well-established." I countered by saying that the average reader may not know this and that wikipedia should not be that stingy about giving out information. Now instead of countering my argument you have taken up a new position that ""Mountbatten deemed" makes it appear as if it is his personal opinion." So does this mean that you are in favour of inclusion of the text, and the issue is not purely semantic? For we can change deemed to a thousand other words to satisfy semantic issues. Next time you reply please pick one of the arguments or both. Are you against inclusion or in favour with purely semantic changes? Why are you against changes? The complete sentence is Mountbatten deemed it untenable according to his Constitutional position, so it does show that the decision was constitutional in nature by mentioning the word constitution. However feel free to present any alternative that you have.
5. India's position. First you called this WP:OR, I showed you that it was an exact quote from the book with minimal copy edit to remove any copy vio issues. Now you have changed your position to say that "it is the author's own observation". then you say "I think "wish" would have been better term to use than "demand" here". This is a very hard to understand position for me. You are commenting on the authorship of a book instead of commenting on inclusion. If you want to argue what the author "should have written" the forum to use ought to be the editorial board of his book, not wikipedia. We have accepted that the book is reliable so we accept that whatever he wrote is also reliable. Just when did wikipedians start nitpicking reliable sources? I mean I can say that Shakespeare should have killed Macbeth in this and that scene, but the forum for such commentary is not wikipedia. So I am afraid I cannot see any argument in your reply, just commentary on the book, which you should communicate to the editorial board. You are basically saying, "This would have looked better" but he has "already" written and published the book, we cannot change his words.

@regentspark and Kautilya3 I would like to say again that if we keep changing our arguments every time we reply there will be no resolution to this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• C-Class India articles
• High-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of High-importance
• C-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles
• Top-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• C-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Indian military history articles
• Indian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• Indian and Pakistani Wikipedians cooperation board