Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2021

Political status of Azad Kashmir

Kautilya3, Pakistan's constitution presently describes Pakistan as consisting only of the four provinces of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh and the Islamabad Capital Territory, which is an administrative territory rather than a province. Because Azad Kashmir is not constitutionally part of Pakistan, therefore, it should properly be designated as a dependent territory rather than as an administrative territory. The use of the latter term could be taken to imply that Azad Kashmir is part of Pakistan, which is definitely not the case. Also, the caption on the location map which shows Azad Kashmir in red should be changed from "Azad Jammu and Kashmir shown within Pakistan" to "Azad Kashmir shown IN RELATION TO Pakistan." I would also recommend that the parenthetical information in that caption be deleted, since the hatched area on that map IS both claimed AND controlled (by INDIA). Atelerixia (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. But on Wikipedia our job is to summarise reliable sources. So, without citing any sources that employ your choice of terminology, you are in danger of adding WP:OR.

Kashmir, being a highly contentious subject, you cannot simply change longstanding terminology in that way. You would at least need an WP:RfC and a strong collection of sources to back you up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, here are two WIKIPEDIA articles that already use the term "dependent territory" to describe the political status of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Azad_Kashmir

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunza_District

I would think that would be reason enough to change the term used in this article from "administrative territory" to "dependent territory." Wouldn't you agree? Atelerixia (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

                              *                        *                         *                         *                         *

Information from the following Wikipedia articles provides the rationale for changing the description of both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan from an "administrative territory" to a "dependent territory." The Wikipedia definition of "dependent territory" would seem to fit the political status of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan perfectly. The Islamabad Capital Territory could be described as an "administrative territory" since it is an administrative subdivision of Pakistan, but, clearly, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir are officially not such subdivisions and, therefore, should not be described as "administrative territories."

from the Wikipedia article "Azad Kashmir":

"Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is nominally a self-governing state, but ever since the 1949 ceasefire between Indian and Pakistani forces, Pakistan has exercised control over the state without actually incorporating it into Pakistan."

from the Wikipedia article "Gilgit-Baltistan":

"While administratively controlled by Pakistan since the First Kashmir War, Gilgit-Baltistan has never been formally integrated into the Pakistani state and does not participate in Pakistan's constitutional political affairs."

from the Wikipedia article "Dependent territory":

"A dependent territory, dependent area, or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state, yet remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area.[citation needed] A dependent territory is commonly distinguished from a country subdivision by being considered not to be a constituent part of a sovereign state. An administrative subdivision, instead, is understood to be a division of a state proper."

So is there a consensus on changing the description of Azad Kashmir in this article from an "administrative territory" to a "dependent territory."? Atelerixia (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Independent kashmir" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Independent kashmir. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 25#Independent kashmir until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Urdu in the lead

The Urdu rendition of the name in the lead is unnecessary, controversial, and unnecessarily controversial. Urdu isn't even the native language of 90%+ people in Azad Kashmir, as noted in the language section of the page. If the Kashmiri rendition of the name isn't there, why Urdu? (Also see Talk:Aksai Chin#Chinese and Uyghur script in lead.) Should be removed, imo. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan, transcluded below. We don't have consensus on it as of yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not unnecessary (MOS:LEADLANG), and it's not controversial: Urdu is the official language there, and as far as I can see the name, as spelt in Urdu, should be the same in the territory's most widely spoken language too. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for link, Kautilya3. (pretty unlucky the first two pages I noticed were the ones which *didn't* host the the script debate.) Uanfala, the matter (like pretty much everything else related to Kashmir) is controversial, as evidenced by the fact that I'm not the first person raising this issue. I don't know why it matters that Urdu is "official": Wikipedia doesn't run by the rules of any country. Fowler has explained below: "[w]hat does it mean Urdu has official status in Gilgit-Baltistan when we are also disputing the notion of "official" in the very first sentence". And as others have explained, having Urdu in the lead violates WP:NPOV. That's a good enough reason to avoid it. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

What's POV about the name? Ask the inhabitants of the place to write down its name in their language, and 95% of them would give you آزاد کشمیر. Yes, this also happens to be the name in the language that is official in Pakistan, but so what? If the area were administered by India, it would still be Urdu that was official. Yes, everything about Kashmir can be controversial, but we aren't going to bend over backwards and humour all those editors who have tried to rename it to "Gulam Kashmir" or the ones who have wanted, "per NPOV", to put the word Azad from the title in quotation marks. – Uanfala (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You have any source for your claim? If you're talking about what they would give in writing, I'm pretty sure the number can't be 95%, since only 78% in Azad Kashmir are literate. And many probably would still write the name in their local language instead of Urdu. It's possible that most would say "Azad Kashmir", because that's the name of the territory in every language, not just Urdu. If India had administered the territory, it would have multiple official languages and I still would have opposed adding any script. Writing the same thing in multiple scripts has zero encyclopedic value. The script does violate NPOV, since it appears to be legitimising favouring Pakistan's narrative over the status of Azad Kashmir when in fact it's disputed more controversial than that. If India tomorrow declares that Hindi is now the sole official language of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), would you also support adding Hindi script in that page's lead just because it appears on sign boards and most people there say they live in जम्मू और कश्मीर? Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not disputed. By Simla Agreement, both India and Pakistan have accepted to recognize the de facto control of each other's territories. It is only because of the lunatic Hindu nationalist editors, who are ignorant of history, that we have had to take certain measures to protect the pages. There is no problem otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm bad at arguing my points :/. Should there be a formal RfC on this? Doesn't seem like we'll get a consensus arguing this way. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal by Fowler&fowler

• Kashmir is the oldest dispute before the UN, unresolved since 1947.
• The UN News report on the UN Secretary General statement on Kashmir in 2019 says, "The UN Secretary-General António Guterres appealed for ‘maximum restraint’ over the territory of Jammu and Kashmir on Thursday, which has been disputed by India and Pakistan, since the end of British rule in the 1940s."
• A UN report of 2018 on the UN Human Rights Chief's statement on Kashmir says: "Flagging the launch of the first UN human rights report on the disputed territory separating India and Pakistan, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein noted his intention to ask the Human Rights Council in Geneva to set up a commission of inquiry at its next session, beginning on Monday."
• The Simla agreement of 1972 was signed in the immediate aftermath of the India-Pakistan war of 1971 when India was still holding 90,000 Pakistani POWs; it no longer recognized by Pakistan.

• In 2019, a UN news report stated, "Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Khan, shone a spotlight on the right to self-determination of the people of the disputed territory of Kashmir." That suggests that Pakistan considers Kashmir to be disputed as well.
• A Winter 2020 journal article authored by an academic at the US Air Command and Staff College and hosted by a Department of Defense website (though not reflecting US Defense Department policy, states, "Pakistani efforts to put down a 1971 revolt in East Pakistan required a troop buildup in the state that then resulted in a third war between the two rivals. India’s role in this war was crucial in stripping Pakistan of its eastern holdings, and with them, more than half its population, capturing one-third of its army and establishing an independent Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan). India used this victory as leverage in Kashmir, as it pressured Pakistan to agree to resolve the dispute bilaterally (Pakistan later disputed the exact terms of the agreement)."

• The US Library of Congress map (made by the CIA in 2002) is titled: The disputed area of Kahmir.
• The latest US Congressional Research Service report on Kashmir, Kashmir: Background, Recent Developments, and U.S. Policy, (updated January 13, 2020) states: ". The former princely region’s sovereignty has been unsettled since 1947 and its territory is divided by a military “Line of Control,” with Pakistan controlling about one-third and disputing India’s claim over most of the remainder as J&K (China also claims some of the region’s land). The United Nations considers J&K to be disputed territory, but New Delhi, the status quo party, calls the recent legal changes an internal matter, and it generally opposes third-party involvement in the Kashmir issue. U.S. policy seeks to prevent conflict between India and Pakistan from escalating, and the U.S. Congress supports a U.S.-India strategic partnership that has been underway since 2005, while also maintaining attention on issues of human rights and religious freedom." The US has all sorts of strategic imperatives in South Asia; it has generally been reluctant to get directly involved in the Kashmir dispute for the last 30 years. It does not mean that Kashmir is no longer disputed. It has nothing to do with Hindu nationalism. There is a third-party in the Kashmir dispute, the people of Kashmir, especially of the valley whose views in the matt, India especially has walled out from all discussions, through governments religious and secular.
• The UK Government advice on doing business in Kashmir states, "British companies considering projects in disputed territory in the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir are advised to contact the nearest British High Commission in India or Pakistan or the Department for International Trade in London before proceeding."
• Parliament of Australia report on India and Pakistan state, "the animosity between India and Pakistan, and the border dispute in Kashmir that continues to plague relations between the two countries." I'm sure I can run the gamut of similar statements of most western liberal democracies and Japan.
• Pinging editors, some of which were a part of the earlier discussion on phrasing and maps. Dear @Mar4d, Saqib, USaamo, Gotitbro, Vanamonde93, DeluxeVegan, Titodutta, Uanfala, Kautilya3, Johnuniq, Doug Weller, Lingzhi2, Moonraker, Ms Sarah Welch, RegentsPark, Sitush, Bishonen, and Abecedare: also pinging @EdJohnston:. I am nonnegotiably on vacation. I'm making an exception for a single proposal.
• Proposal: No first-order (or largest) sub-regions of Kashmir should include non-English scripts in the lead or infobox. This includes Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Aksai Chin as well as the historical pages: Jammu and Kashmir (state) and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state); the flagship page, the zeroeth order, Kashmir is covered by the same proposal.
• Unfortunately I have to bow out after this. Please resolve this in an NPOV fashion. My logic is simple. Kashmir is a disputed territory. No country has sovereignty over it. Native scripts are not allowed in the Indian controlled regions per WP:INDICSCRIPTS. They should not be allowed in any region, under any administration, as they can be seen as assertions or symbols of sovereignty. Making exceptions will create demands for flouting INDICSCRIPTS in Indian-administered regions as well (and we will be back to square one in Kashmir). Commonwealth English is good enough. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

(That didn't work for @EdJohnston:. There, pinged him, to make up for the fact that this whole thing is above my paygrade. Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC).)

Discussion

• Support proposal I guess “non-English scripts” means text in other languages and/or in non-Roman scripts. This seems very reasonable, especially in the context of the disputed status of the region. I can’t think of any other encyclopaedia that includes such intrusions, anyway. Moonraker (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote "non-Roman" first, then changed it, thinking it might be confusing to some. Thanks. (There goes my grand pledge to not return.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Not a fan of scripts in leads generally as they're generally problematic (WP:OR in most cases) and add nothing of value, not too long a ago the Gilgit Baltistan article was carrying Balti in the lead with the Tibetan script to boot (hardly used in the region). Moreover most of the time they are either incorrect transliterations of the English or just plain wrong. Keeping this and consistency, for Level-1 Kashmir articles in view, I would recommend not keeping them in leads; though I don't have a strong opinion here. Gotitbro (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• How about transliterations (i.e. āzād kaśmīr) or local pronunciation in IPA? – Uanfala (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No pronunciations, English or local, in the manner of Britannica Pronunciations can be disputed as well, or be hard to source unambiguously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Removing hard-to-source POV-magnets sounds very attractive. MOS:LEADLANG says (with my bold): "a single foreign language equivalent name can be included" and I see no reason why Wikipedia should host disputes about whose single language wins, particularly not without a solid-gold and totally independent reliable source. For this proposal to go anywhere, there would probably need to be a preliminary discussion here followed by a widely publicized RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't recall ever seeing a dispute about which language to include here on this article. The only dispute is the one we're having right now, and it is to do only with the new proposal to exclude the native name altogether. – Uanfala (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support: very well argued proposal. There's no encyclopedic value in writing in the name in the "official language" in Kashmir pages, it only violates NPOV. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 12:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Before making it controversial, we need to understand the status of Urdu in Pakistan to understand why name in Urdu is most relevant here which is not just official. Urdu is not the first language of most of Pakistanis but it is the second language of majority Pakistanis and is used as lingua-franca in the country from Karachi to Gilgit. Pakistan is a diverse country with around a hundred languages spoken in different regions. Urdu serves as the language of communication between Pakistanis and is most widely understood. Even most of illiterate population know or atleast understand it. A Sindhi, Balochi, Punjabi, Pashtun if goes to north in Gilgit Baltistan or Azad Kashmir, he easily communicates in Urdu with them and similarly every other vice versa. Urdu being considered the language of Muslims of South Asia and most of the Islamic theology and newspapers published in Urdu by Muslims back then was the reason that Muslim population in this region even before Pakistan adopted Urdu, Kashmir too being one of the Muslim majority area. Even today in Indian held Kashmir it is the state language. After it was made national language in Pakistan it spread further wide. Moreover most of the regional languages in Pakistan are written in Urdu's script which is Perso-Arabic, so a person writing Azad Kashmir in his native language too will most probably be writing it same as Urdu.

Everything I said above applies to the territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan the same way as it applies to any province of Pakistan. I humbly request editors that it should not be made controversial here in anyway. I'm surprised and disappointed seeing this that even this mere thing is not tolerable for some editors in neighborhood shows ultra nationalist stance on their part. In India they might not be writing native names especially with places as per policy but here we do write along with them, so let it be. Thanks and regards! USaamo ^(t@lk) 05:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Transcluded from Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per consensus on the variously-administered subregions of the disputed Kashmir region, no symbols of sovereignty are allowed, only those of administration. So offering G-B as the example of a region to which WP:INDICSCRIPTS does not apply misses the point. That logic applies equally to Ladakh or Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) which India administers, but over which it does not have undisputed sovereignty. It is not as if this region was historically called Gilgit-hyphyen-Baltistan. That is the name of a region of Pakistani administration, so adding the script of a language putatively spoken or written in the area lends the mantle of cultural legitimacy to an administrative construct. Please self-revert @Uanfala: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, the region has not historically been called that, but it is now, and I don't see how giving the name in two of the region's languages could be seen as legitimising an administrative construct, any more than giving any other piece of information about it. The use of native scripts here has never until now been controversial. If anything, extending the India-related style guideline of WP:INDICSCRIPTS to territories not administered by India would seem to add a "mantle of legitimacy" to India's territorial claims. If Ladakh doesn't have native scripts, that's not because the territory is disputed, but because editors have applied the India-wide style guideline. – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Earlier the same region was called Northern Areas. For the people of the region it was no more northern than it was southern or western. So adding شمالی علاقے would have been another example of conflating sovereignty and administration. The consensus to explicitly mention "region administered by ...," and "disputed region of Kashmir," to not use flags, emblems, scripts had nothing to do with Indicscripts; it had Pakistani editors on board. I have no idea what you are talking about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) does not have any scripts either? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) doesn't have any scripts because it is – rightly or not – treated as falling under the scope of the Indian guidelines of INDICSCRIPT (I did try to contest that for Dras a few years ago, but everyone else told me that the scripts had to go because the place was in India). I remember the discussion about the current wording of the lead sections of those territories, but I don't recall anything being discussed, let alone decided, about removing scripts. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what you think about the motivations of others. The more important question is: Are you saying that administration is sovereignty? If not, then we cannot have scripts because those are disputed as much as alternative names. After all, we do not say Indian Occupied Kashmir in the lead sentence of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). We cannot use Urdu and Balti in this page because in a disputed region we cannot keep out Kashmiri, Hindi (India's official language) ... and very soon the lead sentence would look like a mess. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The infobox says: Languages: Balti, Shina, Wakhi, Burushaski, Khowar, Domaki, Urdu (administrative). Please add the scripts of those languages with the citations. I have added citation needed tags. So, to sum up: we need ciitations for Urdu and Balti, and scripts with citations for the five others, and a citation for why we can keep out Kashmiri, Ladakhi, and Hindi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what you think about the motivations of others. Sorry, I was only referring to what those people were explicitly stating themselves; I only brought that up because I found it funny that they were removing scripts from articles about places in Indian-administered Kashmir for the very opposite reasons to the ones you're giving for removing them from articles in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Now, if you would like to add the native names in Shina, Wakhi, or other languages that are spoken inside Gilgit-Baltistan, feel free. If there's too many of them, they can be moved out of the first sentence. – Uanfala (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've asked you a simple question: Does a country have sovereignty over a disputed region it administers? If it does not, then what non-English languages do we list? Do we list the official language of the administering country? Do we list the official language of the disputing country? Do we list the languages spoken in the region? If we are to list the official languages, then why are we listing Balti? If we are listing the major languages of the region, then why are we listing Urdu (it is hardly spoken) and why are we not listing Shina which is spoken by 40% of the population? As you are suggesting that I am welcome to add Shina, I interpret this to mean that your interest is not in adding any helpful, relevant or consistent information to the page, but only in Wikilawyering. No wonder you already have more edits here than you do in the Gilgit Baltistan page. That is what is funny. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're making this into an issue of sovereignty. Articles about regions give the names of those regions in the languages that have official status or are widely spoken there. This has nothing to do with who claims sovereignty. Yes, Urdu happens to be the official language of Pakistan (as well as the official language in Indian-administered Kashmir), but that's beside the point. What matters here is that Urdu has official status in Gilgit-Baltistan. – Uanfala (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

You state, "Articles about regions give the names of those regions in the languages that have official status or are widely spoken there." Well, Kashmir, the flagship article, does not. Why don't you try to change it after ten years?

What do you think the long RfC Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_69#A_proposal_for_Kashmir-related_pages_on_this_notable_day_for_India_and_Pakistan was about if not sovereignty, disputed regions, administration, and the thrusting and parrying of national POVs (which obviously includes by the use of ostentatious displays of scripts).

You are missing the forest for the trees. What does it mean Urdu has official status in Gilgit-Baltistan when we are also disputing the notion of "official" in the very first sentence: GB "is a region administered by Pakistan as an administrative territory, and constituting the northern portion of the larger Kashmir region which has been the subject of a dispute between India and Pakistan since 1947, and between India and China from somewhat later?" Is what is good for the goose (Kashmir) not good for the gander (Gilgit Baltistan)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

How about we fight these battles on the Aksai Chin page? Our Chinese friends would love to hear F&f's views on sovereignty, I am sure. Just kidding.

On pragmatic grounds, I would prefer the Urdu script to be there, merely because the Urdu Wikipedia is despicable and I would like the Urdu readers to find our pages via Google searches and find some decent material to read, if only via Google translate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, a google search for گلگت بلتستان does not bring up the Gilgit-Baltistan page, at least not among the first 30 returns, but it does bring up the various articles on G-B on BBC Urdu, the premier Urdu-language online site, with 700,000 hits a day. Sadly only 2% of the traffic is from India, suggesting the near extinction of the Urdu script there. So, pragmatically, I don't see the point of Urdu scripts anywhere in the Kashmir-related pages: the Urdu-literate have access to much better sites (such as BBC Urdu, VOA Urdu. DW.com Urdu, Dawn.com Urdu, ...). they don't need this article, and, most Urdu speakers of India who are illiterate in Urdu, at least in the Urdu heartland, will have no ability to read this article.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude in your discussion, but I just wanted to say that I have been watching this talk section to see the developments toward using or not using any non–English scripts in the articles for (predominantly Pakistani–administered) Kashmir territories. I searched for the Pakistani–administered territory of Gilgit–Baltistan on Google in Urdu ("گلگت بلتستان") and the first two returns were from the Farsi (Persian) and Urdu Wikipedia articles (point to be noted: the Farsi–language article came up first). I think Kautilya3 may have a point about the use of the Urdu script attracting Urdu readers to this article. — Xeed.rice (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

115.112.135.130 (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It is POK not Azad Kashmir

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 11:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

Change title of 'Azaad kashmir' to 'Pakistan occupied Kashmir' 2402:8100:3008:74E8:1:2:D481:F345 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done and won't be done - the current title was agreed by consensus - see the archives - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

As I am unable to edit the article I would like to notify people who can that Zohaibahmed123 has recently edited this article in a way that violates the NPOV principle by changing the word administered to occupied when referring to Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir in the first paragraph of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.98.47 (talk) 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've corrected it now. Strange it didn't get noticed for three days. – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021

The name 'Azad' meaning 'free' is an insult to India. This land originally belonged to India and was captured by Pakistan deceitfully. It's not free Kashmir anymore. The lives of people in PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR is miserable to say the least. Kindly change the name from 'Azad Jammu and Kashmir' to 'Pakistan Occupied Kashmir'. 103.197.224.188 (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Melmann 18:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2021

This area is not Azad Kashmir. This is POK (Pakistan occupied Kashmir). 2402:8100:3974:86D8:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See above answers, this is the consensus title. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2021

someone has changed the map used in this page from to this, which violets Wikipedia POV. so i request you to make it correct 180.188.250.46 (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish i think you haven;t read my request correctly, please read it again, i am saying that, a consensus was made already on Kashmir issue, that every article related to Kashmir (disambiguation) will have this map but someone, changed this map without discussion on talk, so please revert that editFollowbrocode (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this, Followbrocode. The map was changed three days ago [1], and the edit somehow didn't get noticed. I've reverted that now. – Uanfala (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

that was my duty, welcomeFollowbrocode (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

Since this is a controversial region, where Pakistan and India both claim their stake and recognize it with different names, it is not justified to give title which is associated only with one country i.e. Pakistan. It gives impression that Wikipedia is biased on this. Thus it is more appropriate to give an elaborated combined title "Azad Kashmir Or Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK)" which is better representation of the political status and understanding of two big countries. Nuc.nav (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you also consider renaming – for the exact same reasons – Jammu and Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir Or Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)? – Uanfala (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

References