Talk:Pakistan-administered Kashmir

message: I've placed a merge proposal seeing above discussions at Talk:Azad_Kashmir#Merger_proposal. This article should be merged into Azad Kashmir & Gilgit-Baltistan (probably some content into History of Azad Kashmir). Comment there to keep the discussion in one place. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk:Azad_Kashmir#Merger_proposal 

message: Set up clue bot here? The page needs a clean look for the new discussions related to disambig. as well as getting huge. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Mar4d (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: This should be, "it may refer to" instead of "its two administrative entities are" because the administrative entities are of Pakistan and not Pakistan-administered Kashmir as that is a neutral name given to the region. In short, the administrative entities are of a country or a province and this would have been true if P.A.K. was a province of Pakistan. I suppose you have an explanation for keeping it that way? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with that slight rephrase. JCAla (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, then that stays till some one else has a better one. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Administrative entities" 

message: I think made is out of context here. The fact that it has been "made" a province-like entity is just like adding that it was "separated" from the whole Azad Kashmir in 70s (which has an equal weight to be added if "made" is added - but then this is not an article). See other examples of disambiguation pages (Kashmir (disambiguation)), the all just tell what something currently is. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Without "made a province-like" the reader will get confused. It is an administrative entity of the area referred to as "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". But it has been made a part of Pakistan proper. The made illustrates that for clarification purpose only. JCAla (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole area is a part of Pakistan as per Pakistan's claims (though Azad Kashmir does have self government), this is a separate debate for the article as covered there already. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: If the "made" is to be left out, the sentence needs to be the "two administrative entities that it refers to are". Not "might refer to". JCAla (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And why would that be so? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: The clarification is a political issue suitable for the article. Why would we need to remove "might" if we remove "made"? --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: They're not administrative entities of P.A.K. but of Pakistan. Pak-administered Kashmir is not a unit by itself -its just a name like Indian-administered Kashmir. I've explained my views on made, maybe a third opinion would help in that. For the removal of "might" - both can be called as Pak administered Kashmir since both are parts of Kashmir administered by Pakistan otherwise there's no purpose of keeping a disambiguation as pointed out by a user above and we'll have to turn it in to a redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "- 'made' a province-like" versus  "- a province-like" 

message: This page is clearly in violation of WP:DABCONCEPT because it incorrectly frames related topics that are susceptible to being explained comprehensively as being separate and ambiguous uses of a term. Although it may at times be less taxing to avoid writing the article explaining the relationship between these terms, laziness and a cavalier attitude towards the facts of the situation provides no excuse for misleading readers into thinking that actual ambiguity exists, and can not justify violations of the policy designed to avoid this kind of misrepresentation. bd2412 T 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These are actually ambiguous terms, an RFC was held for it to not have a separate article (like Indian-administered Kashmir redirects to the original one). There are two areas that can be referred to as Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Both are listed. Pakistan-administered Kashmir can also be referred to as their combined entity before 70s. Consensus was to have this disambiguation. I don't have any issues if it is redirected, but you'll have to change that consensus. Some parts of discussion are on Talk:Azad Kashmir. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The very fact that you are able to articulate how the name refers to the changing status of a single geographic region over time demonstrates that it is capable of being discussed as a single evolving concept. That is not ambiguity; all regions experience that kind of change over a long enough time. The distinction between Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) and Mercury (car), now that is ambiguity. Talk page consensus can not make this material appropriate for disambiguation any more than talk page consensus can make this page a featured article. bd2412 T 14:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What I have been saying. This should be a short article explaining basic things. JCAla (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either that, or it must be redirected elsewhere, or deleted. bd2412 T 18:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to redirect it to a single article, since the term explicitly refers to two entities: Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. JCAla (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there no article which discusses more generally the history of Pakistan's relationship to the region? A section redirect would suffice, perhaps to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions. bd2412 T 21:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The fact that this is a disambiguation page implies that Pakistan-administered Kashmir can mean Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan, but in actuality it means Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. TimBentley (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give some examples where Wikipedia would need to use "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", linked here instead of to Kashmir or Kashmir dispute, instead of Pakistan's own administrative divisions? I ask because I see that many of the links here are inappropriate, such as the one from Muzaffarabad, which said that the city was the "capital of Pakistan administered Kashmir, Pakistan" when no such administrative division exists. Shrigley (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is exactly why this should not be a disambiguation page; if "links here are appropriate" then they must reference a single encyclopedic topic to be appropriately linked to. bd2412 T 22:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, that was a typo; I meant inappropriate. Shrigley (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" term is notable because to this day the area (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) is referred to as such by the international community including the United Nations. Historically the area also included a third area now ceded to China. So this should be a short article explaining what is "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", how and why was it partitioned into several parts, etc. JCAla (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No thanks. There's already consensus on how there are issues with having an article on this. By the way, whatever you mentioned above is completely covered in History of Azad Kashmir and History of Gilgit-Baltistan. So no point in reviving this talk again.... Mar4d (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Issues with having an article do not excuse misuse of the disambiguation tag. There is no ambiguous term here; therefore, this page violates WP:DABCONCEPT and must be brought into conformance with policy by deletion, redirection, or construction of an article in this space. I understand that such an article would be very difficult to write in a way that satisfies diverse points of view on the subject, but Wikipedians have managed to write articles on difficult and controversial topics before, so such issues really do not present much of an excuse either. Furthermore, please note that if this page were to be brought into conformance with WP:MOSDAB, this would require removal of all links on the page which do not contain the phrase "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which would leave this as a blank page suitable for speedy deletion. bd2412 T 14:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken a thorough look at the discussion and viewpoints, and can understand that there are issues with having this as a disambig. Would it not be better to remove all the redundant links (including Chinese and Indian Kashmir) and just leave Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan? Does that fulfill the purpose of disambiguating? Or if that doesn't work out, I don't see a problem with redirecting either. But as far creating an article again is concerned, that's not the road to go. And User:Shrigley has a valid point by the way, as to why this disambig page should exist: the reason being that many links that come to this page are inappropriate and are usually referring to Azad Kashmir or Gilgit Baltistan half the time (and as such, should be linked to those articles instead, not here). Mar4d (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have proposed above the option of redirecting to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, and I am coming to think that this is the best solution. Of course, the Kashmir article addresses all historical and political matters to which this title seems to be directed. The fact that a region is subdivided into smaller administrative divisions, or has evolved in its divisions over time, does not make the name of the region ambiguous; it makes it a topic. See, for example, Southeastern United States. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Exactly, it makes it a topic and thereby worthy of an article. As TimBentley pointed out, the term refers to Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan and can even refer to the historical entity which had a third part now ceded to China. If it's not turned into an article I support the above idea by BD. JCAla (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: I support redirecting to Kashmir#Current status and political divisions, as proposed by BD2412. This provides the necessary explanation of the status and related disputes (although it could be improved).  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: This solution having been implemented, I would like to make sure after the fact that there is no further objection to it. If not, I will remove this page from the WP:DPL list of problems to be addressed. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DABCONCEPT]] 

message: How's this page a part of Wikiproject India? I don't see Wikiproject Pakistan tags on Jammu and Kashmir. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Pak-administered Kashmir is the term best corresponding to the term Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as per the Indian government stance. Hence the relevance. AshLin (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is UN's term... India uses PoK. That term might be a part of that project. Btw, there's no need to editwar it back into the page when I'm discussing it myself. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Kashmir has a shared history and therefore the tag is appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: topgun asked a reasonable question: why aren't there any wikiproject pakistan tags on the Jammu and Kashmir-page? will he get reverted if he added some?-- altetendekrabbe  22:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has that area ever been administered by Pakistan? Personally, I couldn't care less but TG has a (recent) history of POV-y edits & so if the intent is merely to stir the pot then that would be inappropriate. However, this is really a discussion to be had on that article's talk page - WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sitush, your persistent referring to my edits in general as POV on any discussion you encounter will not help those discussions in anyway... they'll only constitute minor personal attacks, so you can start with stopping those as that is precisely what inappropriate will mean. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

text: India has never administered this area, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I've tagged J&K for the Pakistan Wikiproject, given the level of interest demonstrated here by members towards that article.  Shrigley (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting response by TG & Mustihussain considering I only tagged a redirect out of compulsion of a habit I have developed to add Project template to India articles. FYI, tags already exist on many articles of WikiProject Pakistan - things like Indus Valley Civilisation which are also of interest to WikiProject India. I'm not going to edit war/revert on this issue. TG is free to revert my edit now without my gaming him for a 1RR violation. I'm not reverting Shrigley's tag on J&K either. A tag only means that the topic is of interest and relevance to a WikiProject and that the presence of a project template on a talk page only indicates the project's commitment to improving the article.  AshLin (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My question was simply on precedent and as far as I've seen the project tags are added to the articles which have direct relevance to the country (I don't think you'll be able to WP:India tag to "martian aliens" as Ragib claims). The interesting part here was that you reverted it back in instead of discussing, that makes far from a 'compulsion of a habit' given that not even I took it as a big deal. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:INDIA Tag 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Azad Kashmir which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress