Talk:Kashmir: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:28, 31 July 2016 editKautilya3 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,587 edits →Refugees - unreliable source: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:30, 31 July 2016 edit undoKautilya3 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers86,587 edits →Refugees - unreliable source: CommentNext edit →
Line 79:		Line 79:

	== Refugees - unreliable source ==		== Refugees - unreliable source ==
		⚫	{{quotebox\|There are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-Administered Kashmir in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir and other parts of Pakistan.<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.ips.org.pk/pakistan-and-its-neighbours/1117-kashmiri-refugees-facts-issues-and-the-future-ahead\|title=Kashmiri Refugees: Facts, Issues and the Future Ahead\|last=Rahman\|first=Khalid\|website=www.ips.org.pk\|access-date=2016-07-31}}</ref>

⚫	{{ping\|Fenrir77}} The content you have added (reproduced ~~below~~) is sourced to a ]. The author is the Director of the ] and the editor of the journal (apparently an in-house journal of the Institute) . I am replacing it by reliably sourced content. -- ] (]) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
⚫	{{quotebox\|1=There are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-Administered Kashmir in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir and other parts of Pakistan.<ref>{{Cite web\|url=http://www.ips.org.pk/pakistan-and-its-neighbours/1117-kashmiri-refugees-facts-issues-and-the-future-ahead\|title=Kashmiri Refugees: Facts, Issues and the Future Ahead\|last=Rahman\|first=Khalid\|website=www.ips.org.pk\|access-date=2016-07-31}}</ref>
	{{reflist-talk}}}}		{{reflist-talk}}}}
			{{clear}}

		⚫	{{ping\|Fenrir77}} The content you have added (reproduced above) is sourced to a ]. The author is the Director of the ] and the editor of the journal (apparently an in-house journal of the Institute) . I am replacing it by reliably sourced content. -- ] (]) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
			: I have now done a little bit of calculation since all kinds of numbers are being thrown around. According to Snedden's data, there were 1.2m Muslims in the Jammu province in the 1941 census. There was pretty much no migration from the Kashmir province. So, it is clearly impossible for 1.5m Muslims to have migrated to AJK from the Indian-held Kashmir!
			: If I subtract Mirpur and half of Poonch populations, then the rest of the Jammu province had only about 700,000 Muslims (about 50% of the population). India's Jammu province is still 33.5% Muslim. So, the maximum number that could have migrated is 17% of the-then population, which is about 250,000. Even the 500,000 number that was accepted by ] is an overestimate.
			: While we are at it, let me also note that the 17% Hindus of Mirpur and 9% Hindus of Poonch (about 100,000 in total) have vanished. Nobody talks about them. So much for reliable sources! -- ] (]) 22:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:30, 31 July 2016

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kashmir 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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Template:Vital article

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Kashmir. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Kashmir at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

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 Top‑importance

	India portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan Top‑importance

	Pakistan portal 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.

Military history: Asian / Chinese / 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 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
	Chinese military history task force
	Indian military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

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.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The Pakistani name for Kashmir

Shouldn't the Pakistani name for Kashmir be given in the lede? I realize this is an article fraught with contention, but it seems reasonable to include it, even if the Indian editors may not want to include it.__209.179.8.124 (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@209.179.8.124: And, what is the Pakistani name for Kashmir? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The national language of Pakistan is Urdu. The Urdu name for Kashmir is given in the first sentence of the article. Maproom (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 11:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Extent of "Kashmir"

@Fowler&fowler: The text that said that the extent of "Kashmir" varied through time is correct. The rulers of the Kashmir valley dominated the surrounding areas and all the area under their control was called "Kashmir." I don't have sources ready at present. But this is an important point because it is part of the justification of using the term for the wider region at present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to see those sources. The only reason why Kashmir is used for the wider geographical region today is that the Dogra rulers of the princely state, of Kashmir and Jammu, who had been rulers of Jammu until they, in succession, invaded Ladakh and Baltistan in the 1830s and early 40s, purchased the valley cheaply from the British as reward for betraying the Sikhs in 1846, and established treaties of vassalage with the Hunza and Nagar to the north. All contemporary internationally vetted RS, such as Chitralekha Zutshi's Language of Belonging: Islam, Regional Identity, and the Making of Kashmir, Columbia University Press, 2003; and Mridu Rai, Hindu Ruler, Muslim Subjects: Islam Rights and the History of Kashmir, Princeton University Press, 2004, use the terms, Kashmir, Kashmir Valley, and the Valley synonymously for the pre-1846 era. To be sure, there were political entities such as the Mughal Soubah of Kashmir, whose capital alternated between Kabul and Kandahar, but the geographical term was always reserved for the valley. Extending a political term to a geographical would be akin to describing the geographical term Bengal to once have included Uttar Pradesh or United Provinces, because latter was technically a part of the Bengal Presidency in the 19th century. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "pre-1846 era." During the times when Kashmir lost its hold over the surrounding regions (and even itself), sure "Kashmir" meant just the valley. This is the "Kashmir proper." But when Kashmir was a major power, it lent its name to the surrounding regions. See for example, Wink, pp. 233-234 and also other occurrences of Kashmir in the book. The Chachnama states that the border of Kashmir was at a place called panj mahiyat, whose precise location is not known but historians interpret it to be somewhere in northwestern Punjab. At that time, apparently, there was no "Punjab", only "Sindh" and "Kashmir." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Wink, André (2002), Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7Th-11th Centuries, BRILL, pp. 233–234, ISBN 0-391-04173-8

Well, then why don't we say that in the lead:

"According to the definitive interpretation of Rajatrangini---the hallmark of Kashmiri historiography---by Professor Andre Wink of the University of Wisconsin, during the early Indian medieval age, there was no Punjab, no land watered by five rivers, no remnants of the Sapta Sindhu so beloved of the Vedas. There was only Sind and Kashmir. The river Indus, after it coursed at great speed around the western anchor of the Himalayas, the Nanga Parbat, flowed directly into Sind. This could only have been possible if the ingenious Hindu Kashmiris had knowledge of advanced aqueduct technology and so we may assume that the Roman arch was reinvented in Kashmir."

In other words, I'm wise to Hindu nationalist irredentism. That a posited kingdom based in the Kashmir valley from time to time expanded in frontiers or became part of a larger empire, does not change the geographical denotation of Kashmir, which has always been the valley. After the mid 19th century, the geographical denotation itself changed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, you know the history of this article better than I do. If "Kashmir" means the same as Kashmir Valley, why do we need two separate articles for them? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Because, after 1846, the term Kashmir began to be used both informally and officially for the princely state of Kashmir and Jammu (the British name). This article was originally titled Kashmir region, and it stopped (historically) in 1947. The Kashmir and Jammu (princely state), created later, and still later changed to J&K (princely state) (apparently the ruling Dogra's name for their state), was a content fork, almost a copy at first, whose creation I opposed, but it slipped through anyway. The Kashmir valley is another content fork, which, if I remember correctly, was created mainly to make the reference to the Kashmir valley in this article a blue link. This is Misplaced Pages my friend (and I mean the last bit). (Sorry for my blunt tone in my posts above, but this article (for all kinds of reasons) attracts drive-bys, which you most assuredly are not; in fact, I'm glad that you're watching over this article, as my visits are increasingly sporadic. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me the history of the articles. But, my point is that the traditional extent of "Kashmir" is not much different from that of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. It has always been larger than the Kashmir valley. The mountains provide natural boundaries and these don't change over time. The disputed sentence was added here. I think the editor is right that all the historical maps show the extent of Kashmir to be the same. (There is nothing to indicate that the editor is a Hindu nationalist. Judging from the edit history, he/she is probably a Shin.) In the one case when the boundaries have been precisely recorded, viz., Chachnama, we do have confirmation. I expect that the fertile Kashmir valley would have provided the revenue and the surrounding mountain regions would have provided the fighting forces. This natural ecology of the place was broken by the Durranis. But, historically speaking, this is an aberration rather than the norm. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Refugees - unreliable source

There are roughly 1.5 million refugees from Indian-Administered Kashmir in Pakistan-Administered Kashmir and other parts of Pakistan.

References

Rahman, Khalid. "Kashmiri Refugees: Facts, Issues and the Future Ahead". www.ips.org.pk. Retrieved 2016-07-31.

@Fenrir77: The content you have added (reproduced above) is sourced to a self-published source. The author is the Director of the Institute of Policy Studies (Pakistan) and the editor of the journal (apparently an in-house journal of the Institute) . I am replacing it by reliably sourced content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have now done a little bit of calculation since all kinds of numbers are being thrown around. According to Snedden's data, there were 1.2m Muslims in the Jammu province in the 1941 census. There was pretty much no migration from the Kashmir province. So, it is clearly impossible for 1.5m Muslims to have migrated to AJK from the Indian-held Kashmir!

If I subtract Mirpur and half of Poonch populations, then the rest of the Jammu province had only about 700,000 Muslims (about 50% of the population). India's Jammu province is still 33.5% Muslim. So, the maximum number that could have migrated is 17% of the-then population, which is about 250,000. Even the 500,000 number that was accepted by Christopher Snedden is an overestimate.

While we are at it, let me also note that the 17% Hindus of Mirpur and 9% Hindus of Poonch (about 100,000 in total) have vanished. Nobody talks about them. So much for reliable sources! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Categories: