Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 47

India: Politics Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Pakistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Military history: Asian / South Asia / Cold War C‑class

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 articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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
	South Asian military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Sources[edit]

The text to the resolution of obviously key, but its more of an external links/see also issue. The analysis and other wordings in the article ought to be sourced. For example: "after hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan the Council increased the size of the Commission established by..." the after hearing parts and the increase are outside the scope of the text of resolution 47. Lihaas (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that bit about hearing from both India and Pakistan is in one of the preambulatory clauses at the top. I would like to see analysis and that needs to be source but I think everything here right now can be found in the text. - Schrandit (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.co.in/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENIN276&=&q=unsc+resolution+47&btnG=Google+Search&meta= In a bit of rush to do analysis, but there's plenty of citable resources.

For right now I'll have to leave the analysis to someone who is better qualified that I am. But for now, should the unsourced tag come down? - Schrandit (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN removing Kasmir from its list[edit]

It has been mentioned in this article that: Moreover, in November 2010, United Nations excluded Jammu and Kashmir from its annual list of unresolved international disputes under the observation of the United Nations Security Council. The references cited only mention a Pakistani diplomats objection to a UK envoy not mentioning Kashmir in the list of long running disputes. As far as I have searched, the UN does not keep a "list" of disputed areas from which Kashmir has been removed; as this line seems to say in this article. If anyone can provide any official UN reference to back this up; it would be great. Otherwise, I think it should be removed or at the very least re-worded so as it doesn't give a wrong impression. Please discuss this issue here on the talk page, thanks! Sohebbasharat (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Indian Citation[edit]

Almost 90% of total citations for this article about the UN Resolution on disputed region of Jammu & Kashmir between Pakistan and India, have been taken from Indian websites. The Indian propaganda being, to show as if the UN does not consider the Kashmir worth calling it a dispute anymore or of importance. A balance needs to be drawn here. (SarfarazLarkanian 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC))

Recent edits[edit]

Sms2816, You are making repeated attempts to skew this article and to make it appear as something it is not. There was no "line of resolutions" when this Resolution was passed. That is pure WP:OR and factually false.

Your WP:SOAPBOXing for Pakistan include statements like:

which Pakistan started doing after passing of UN Resolution dated January 5, 1949
Pakistan wished to vest in the commission of the UN the authority to arrange for: (1) the establishment of an impartial interim administration in state; (2) the withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir; (3) the return of refugees; (4) the holding of a free, fair, and unfettered plebiscite.

You have to maintain WP:NPOV and give equal WP:WEIGHT for both India and Pakistan. This is not Pakistanopedia!

How are tribesmen separate from "nationals"? You are padding up the LEAD unnecessarily with loads of verbiage. minimum level required for law and order says the same thing minimum strength required for maintenance of law and order and with fewer words. I don't understand the point of changing this.

Your edits also show WP:Lead fixation, which is not healthy.

Please discuss your concerns here instead of wasting time with pointless edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All Pakistani Nationals shall be withdrawn[edit]

UN resolution 47, Section 1a specifies exactly which Pakistanis will have to withdraw. It is important because not specifying them exactly alludes to the notion that all Pakistanis must withdraw from the state of Jammu and Kashmir. To prove my point I am attaching a link to the News in Kashmir whose writer presumably has used the same wiki page to put down incorrect facts.

"Accordingly, Pakistan was to withdraw all its nationals from the territory under its control and India was to reduce forces in its part of Kashmir which was to be followed by a plebiscite"

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/implement-un-resolutions-in-kashmir-says-jeremy-corbyn/article28984650.ece/amp/?__twitter_impression=true Srazihaider (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please note the change of sentence to "Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals that entered Kashmir for the sake of fighting". Does this satisfy your concern? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Hindu copied Wikipedia, but it is quite common to state "Pakistani nationals" and omit the qualification. Both the sources cited in the body, Raghavan and Korbel do so.

You should also note that the later UNCIP resolutions have said that the areas should be administered by "local authorities". So the UN mediators did not envisage continued Pakistani administration of the areas. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before this edit, wordings of the Hindu exactly matched the wiki wordings and hence my inference, nevertheless I think this edit at least reduces the ambiguity. As for as your comment regarding Pakistani local authorities staying put is concerned, I agree to it but it is unrelated to my edit. Srazihaider (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, "local authorities" means Kashmiri local authorities. By the UNCIP resolution, any Pakistani administrators in the area would have also needed leave, handing control over to the local authorities. So this is related to your issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]