Talk:Srinagar/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

'Currently, the issue of Srinagar, having become an integral part of India, stands settled beyond any doubt, in spite of certain insurgent elements operating from the soil of India, as also from outside the borders of India.'

I think much more needs to be mention about the insurgency... dealing with it in a single sentence is bypassing a major issue, and disrespect for the many people, both soldiers and civilains, who have died due to the conflict there... All I'm askng for is extending the history of the city discribe what happened there in the last 20 years.

Another point is there no mention about the impact of the insurgency on tourism in the history section or about it limping back on growing domestic tourists population.

hydkat 21:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

'truth always triumphs' (written on the Indian national emblem.

Kashmir is disputed and this is acknowledged by UNO.There are 23 resolutions in UNO regarding jammu and kashmir.India is a member of UNO and it was jawaharlal Nehru,first prime minister of india,who took kashmir issue to UNO.Hence India is bound by its commitmnt,it gave to people of J&K.People who talk of integral part theory,should ponder over this fact and talk sensibily.Till now 2 lakh people have died,fighting for the right of self determination.This is the only fact.

this area is disputed

please all indian editors accept that it is administered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nangparbat (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are these people?

I have lived my entire life in Srinagar and I have never heard the names of the following people which have been listed as leaders of Srinagar:

1. Dr Agnishekhar
2. Dr Ajay Chrangoo
3. Mr Ashwani Chrangoo
4. Dr Utpal Kaul
5. Dr KL Chowdhary

They might have their roots in Srinagar but they sure enough do not qualify to be called "Current leaders of the city"

1. Dr Shakti Bhan is a doctor, a well know one, but by no way a Leader!

Are people trying to create true and honest information on Srinagar or are we fighting to whom Srinagar belongs. And since Srinagar is the capital of a disputed territory, it should be put as such.

Wullar 12:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of the notability or otherwise of the persons mentioned above. However, I am sure that under international law as recognized and practiced by the civilized comity of nations, insurgent elements do not abrogate the sovereign rights of a sovereign country (read India) over its territories. --Bhadani (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars

I request the registered as well as the anonymous editors to please stop converting this article into a battlefield. Decent discussion shall avoid wastage of time. Please do not fight here. --Bhadani (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

However, Jammu and Kashmir is Indian administered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.133.29 (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Trekking

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please replace [[trekking|trekkers]] with [[Backpacking (wilderness)|trekkers]] (because Trekking is a disambiguation page). Thanks. 58.8.9.23 (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User:Oniongas - 58.8.9.23 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Some one may organize images in wiki-commons, and give a link here. --Bhadani 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I uploaded a new pano shot this spring: File:Srinagar_pano.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyOMG (talk • contribs) 16:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.252.69.156, 21 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change " Bahut Randiyan hain yahan aur unki chut badi komal hai Land choos choos ke sukha deti hain. Zaroor Chodna." because of offensive language. 117.252.69.156 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Srinagar is NOT the biggest city of India without a Hindu majority.

By the reference on the page ([1]), Amritsar is a bigger city than Srinagar. Amritsar has a majority of Sikhs (78%) ([2]) making that statement invalid. Please remove it ASAP. --92.9.87.247 (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC) srinagar is not the state of india. srinagar is captial of indian ocupied jammu and kashmir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.23.104 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I don´t quite understand the last point here. The article does not say that Srinagar is a state (or does it?), so I´ll assume you mean to refer to what nation Srinagar belongs to. Did I understand this issue right? Llidstrom (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Srinagar is the largest city in Indian administration with a Non-Hindu majority. Please do not word like occupied and integral, no matter what is your national affiliation. Amritsar has a Hindu plurality but not the majority. However, the district is the Sikh majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratham12Chawdhry (talk • contribs)

Edit request from Ashaqhussain, 28 April 2011

There are some additions that can be made under the heading Education

Ashaqhussain (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — Bility (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Navkaul, 29 April 2011

Please remove the quoted text under Culture because the comments translated from Hindi are abusive and insulting.

"Bahut Randiyan hain yahan aur unki chut badi komal hai Land choos choos ke sukha deti hain. Zaroor Chodna."

Navkaul (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC) navkaul

 Not done, sorry, "absuve and insulting" aren't good enough reasons to remove it, note WP:NOTCENSORED CTJF83 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.77.135.130, 15 May 2011

The following line is vulgar .. In the section on culture, last line reads...."Bahut Randiyan hain yahan aur unki chut badi komal hai Land choos choos ke sukha deti hain. Zaroor Chodna." which means there are prostitutes here. it should be deleted.

74.77.135.130 (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The last line under heading Culture is vulgar as well as racist and pornographic. Thanks for removing. 74.77.135.130 (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, next time just call it vandalism ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lohara dynasty

Would it be worth inserting something about the 300 year rule of the Lohara dynasty, c. 1000 - 1300 AD/CE. They do not appear to be mentioned at all and while it is true that I am still working on the Lohara article, there is more than enough there to justify something here. Unless, of course, there was more than one Srinagar in Kashmir at that time. - Sitush (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ashoka

Please can someone explain to me what the connection is between the etymology of Srinagar and the two possible Ashokas? It simply does not say in the article, and then in the History section there is a totally uncited paragraph that claims the city was founded by someone completely different to these two possibles. This is messy beyond belief.

This link to Kalhana (Aurel Stein's translation) shows Stein's analysis at p. 75, saying that Kalhana believes Asjoka founded the original city close to the present site but unfortunately I cannot determine (due to ignorance, I suspect) which Ashoka he is referring to. In any event, this should be a citation because it is in the critique section rather than the primary source itself. I just don't know which Ashoka to stick the cite next to! Thoughts would be welcomed. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: page 84 of the same book linked above gives the refoundation detail, so I guess we have a cite. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Srinagar pano.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Srinagar pano.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 6, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-05-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A panoramic view of Srinagar, the largest city of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Built on both the sides of the Jhelum River, Srinagar is home to over 1.2 million people. It serves as the state's summer capital.Photo: KennyOMG

Indic script

@Sitush:, can you provide link of page where consensus on use of "official Indian languages" in lead section is accepted? Because if you read WP:INDICSCRIPT they clearly mentions that "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script. It is suggested that IPA be used for help with pronunciation." --Vtk1987 (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at WT:INB. I know I am right about the exception for placenames but it looks like no-one actually bothered to update the guideline. Hopefully, it will be resolved in the next few hours. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush:, I will give you two biased example, User Kashmiri removed Marathi text(official language) from article Marathwada(place name) see here, Benagali text from Asansol See here, while he has no problem with Urdu in Srinagar article, he never removes Urdu from this article. See here, he removed Devanagari script from this article which is not official language of Kashmir, it is ok but never tried to remove Urdu text from here citing it as official language of J & K, but I can show he removes Devanagari text from many other articles, though they are Official languages of respective regions. And he is "senior editor", he is "File mover" and "Rollbacker", what you are doing against such biased editors? --Vtk1987 (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It may not be bias; it could just be a simple misunderstanding. I think we are better waiting for people to comment in the INB thread, sort out the revised wording of the guideline and then take things from there. Kashmiri will have seen your note above and they, too, should take heed of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I will add that it is precisely this sort of messing about with scripts that caused the guideline to be introduced in the first place, and it is why I still believe that they are more trouble than they are worth. - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If anyone fails to provide consensus link, or it is not get cleared on "India related topic noticeboard" as you said in next few hours, then we have to remove "Urdu" text from lead of this article, as there is clear cut consensus mentioned on WP:INDICSCRIPT. --Vtk1987 (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not if you are trying to make a point due to Kashmiri's efforts, which is what seems possibly to be the case. Hours, days, makes no odds really. Weeks would be a different matter but I could give you some links right now that show the matter has been discussed and people (escept me!) were generally in favour. All I cannot find is the precise thread where a resolution was determined. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not because of User Kashmiri, you asked me on my talk page to give some example so I given you, there are many other users (like Ankush89) who kept on removing Indic script from "places" articles. If you ask for my opinion, I am in strong support of Keeping Indic script in lead section, either it is in Urdu or Hindi or Bengali. But some users are keep on doing biased editing regarding this "Indic script" policy. Rule should be same for all languages, thats what I want to make a point. --Vtk1987 (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Vtk1987: I was in favour of removing Urdu from all India-related articles as per Wikiproject India RFP, but then I was informed by folks from Wikiproject Pakistan that they do not have such restrictions and they routinely keep Urdu names in their articles. Since Srinagar (and all localities in the entire contested area) falls also under Wikiproject Pakistan (whether right or wrong, I don't judge), then I understand Urdu language is bound to stay in ledes. kashmiri ^TALK 10:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's right where an article is of interest to several different projects. The consensus was only of the India project, not site-wide. In this specific case, though, it seems only to be of interest to the India project. Am I missing something? - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well interesting discussion,Kashmiri, Jammu and Kashmir don't comes under Wikiproject Pakistan and article doesn't has such tag. Next time be careful while editing, don't remove Indic script from Place names as some comments of Sitush suggests that consensus has been made on that. And Urdu is also Indian language. Or have you gain consensus from Wikiproject Bangladesh before removing Bengali text from Asansol? --Human3015 15:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiri, show the clear community consensus on Urdu language not personal discussion. --Vtk1987 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"hundreds of thousands"

Having spent some time there, I'm just curious about how well corroborated this number could be, moreso how one would reliably assess such a number in such a complex municipality.Wikibearwithme (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Srinagar. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6GmnoaB0m?url=http://www.imdpune.gov.in/Temp_Extremes/histext2010.pdf to http://www.imdpune.gov.in/Temp_Extremes/histext2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813232013/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/match_results.html?class=2%3Bid%3D559%3Btype%3Dground to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/team/match_results.html?class=2%3Bid%3D559%3Btype%3Dground

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Srinagar. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.censusindia.gov.in/pca/SearchDetails.aspx?Id=7774
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140618193757/http://kashmir-information.com/KoshSam/Kashmir_Affairs.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/KoshSam/Kashmir_Affairs.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Sheikh Bagh Cemetery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge DBigXrayᗙ 06:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---

This cemetery fails the notability criteria for WP:NBUILD due to the lack of the significant coverage, that is expected. In such cases merging it with the settlement article is an accepted WP:ATD DBigXrayᗙ 19:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Agree that it does not merit a stand-alone article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2018 (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.

Restoring reverted edits

My recent edit to this page was reverted as it appeared to the editor to be WP:ADVOCACY of a particular point of view, specifically waste management in Indian cities or by Indian municipalities. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and see myself as a steward for water, sanitation and solid waste management related content on the site. These are the issues that I intend to write about in a neutral, balanced and informative manner. On reading my edits to the Srinagar page you will find that all of the content is verifiable i.e. it is sourced from reliable and published sources. My writing style, in my opinion, is (1) fact based, (2) neutral in tone without any puffery, contentious labels or unsupported attributions and (3) balanced i.e. holistic and not highlighting fringe views. I do not regard my edits as WP:ADVOCACY and would like to restore the content. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swmwash (talk • contribs)

I took a look at your edit, which can be found here.

The problem with it is that it is too detailed, and doesn't give a high-level picture of what the issues are. Please see WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I recommend that you work on a one-paragraph summary of the issues, and propose it here for comments. You can also use your sandbox (see HELP:My sandbox) to create drafts and polish them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

there are few lines that are discriminatory towards the people of Srinagar and the freedom fighter, Srinagar in not an Indian state and it's an Indian occupied territory under UN Resolution of Kashmir 1948 until the Referendum his held. simply stating Srinagar as Indian state Capital in offensive towards the life sacrificed by the oppressed freedom fighters and the people raped or killed by Indian army, this statement should immediately be changed thank you , from azad jamu kashmir 39.41.129.17 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

How do reliable sources tend to describe Srinagar? I don't see how describing the protests is discriminatory. – Þjarkur (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I have had this similar discussions on other pages before. from what i understand of the editor, he wants to get Srinagar written as "Indian administered Kashmir which is legally true according to the UN resolution he/she mentioned instead of "Indian state of jammu and kashmir". second, this paragraph mentions "Further massacres in the spring of 1990 in which 51 allegedly unarmed protesters were allegedly killed by Indian security forces in Zakura and Tengpora heightened anti-Indian sentiments in Srinagar". Twice use of allegedly word in the same sentence and the original editor still wants to push "alleged" idea after 28 years. its well documented that they were unarmed civilians but that is not the intention of this sentence. Further, ", such as the 22 August 2008" this sentence mentions protests but fails to mention the shutdown that happened that year due to Amarnath land transfer controversy that year and on that particular date being mentioned, failed to report 21 deaths after police fired on them. this is from the same cite note 24 but was NOT reported on the page. next, Afzal guru is mentioned and the protests during that time but people who were killed by forces during that time were not mentioned. Kashmiri pandits are mentioned in the paragraph and the editor conveniently fails to mention another aspect of the situation where Jagmohan, the then governor was instrumental in sending the kashmiri pandit community out of kashmir valley in the hopes of only targetting muslim majority that would be left behind. this fact is often overlooked but beyond the hohum of the millitants and calls for "nizam -e- mustafa" that indeed took place, violence against the minority was committed no doubt but to squarely lay blaim on the muslim majority for driving the hindu minority out is wrong. even if this version of the story is not palatable to the majority of editors here because it does not fit with someone's ideology, there is no reason to not mention it. This is a documented version of events and that needs to be told. Who was right or wrong is not for us editors to decide. we have to mention facts and this version happens to be a fact and one which is well documented. Next, the original editor fails to mention how the present community in kashmir valley at least has been urging the pandit community for a long time but sadly this part is also conveniently left out.

[3] all of this is just out of a cursory look at the page. I could go on and on. I suggest the issues i took up in support of the editor who made this request be discussed at length and an impartial decision by editors who would not have any previous history of editing on kashmir related pages decide because everyone is influnced by their prejudices one way the other and its only natural. Again, there are far more experienced editors than me. if i was able to dig this much up in half an hour, i suppose there would be more qualified editors to take this forward. Mhveinvp (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Martyr's Tomb

Some believe the Martyr's Tomb in Srinagar is the tomb of Jesus Christ. e.g., http://www.spinninglobe.net/jesustombpol.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.146.186 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

a bit too late to answer but the urban legend is about Roza Bal and not the martyr's tomb. Mhveinvp (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2019

Change "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" to "Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir" FixingALie (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

INB discussion

Please see the discussion at the India wikiproject noticeboard aiming to craft standardised neutral ledes for some top-level Kashmir-related article, including possibly this one. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Hi there, I think this article suffers from a curious case of mispronunciation. The lead states the pronunciation is [sriːnəɡər] and while it's been years since I was there I'm quite sure locals pronounce it as [ʃriːnəɡər] (ie "Shrinagar"). I understand the issue with Hindi script and all (which was the reason my request to rename the article in the Hungarian wiki was shut down a few years ago) but I think Wiki should also respect how locals say the name of their own city even ifthat flies in the face of grammar. A case can also be made that there are very few (are there any?) other place names Sri xxx where the Sri is pronounced as "s" instead of "sh". If there are any locals who can weigh in it would be great. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The locals in Kashmir certainly both write and pronounce it as [sriːnaɡər]. If you hear anyone in J&K saying [ʃriːnəɡər], you can be sure they are from India. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Generally, the Kashmiri language has maintained the s–ś distinction, and therefore śrī is unlikely to have evolved into srī, especially given the fact that śrī meaning "Lakshmi" or honorific is still pronounced as śrī in Kashmiri.

On an unrelated note, Sri Lanka is pronounced just this there: "Srī Lankā". — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes December 2020

Regarding this edit by 1990'sguy. The number 1250173 is of the Srinagar district as clearly written in the source [4]. This has been added in the Srinagar district. The Srinagar is the city article, so for the parameter |city= the source is this (1,180,570) and for |metro= the number is 1,273,312 sourced here. Note that it is the same in the status quo version. this old version for example, before one user Soumo Dutt added the population of the district in the city. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Elimination of Stray Dog Controversy

Request to delete the street dog controversy from politics section. Qwertyuiop84919 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Qwertyuiop84919: It's quite a big issue I would say. Why do you want it deleted? Rishabhbhat (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

street dog controversy is not a political issue but a social one, plus these types of issues are in every city and none other than Srinagar city has Wikipedia written on it, I just told you to not put it in the political section, and if you want to keep it then make an another section for street dog controversy. Qwertyuiop84919 (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

It became political when

Animal rights activists vowed to go to court to stop the slaughter planned by Srinagar city, saying it is an illegal and cruel solution to a problem that could be better addressed with other methods.

— https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23500493

. Read also: Srinagar MC to sterilise, vaccinate 50,000 dogs in 6 months - Hindustan Times. Srinagar's dogs are more prominent than any other city, especially contrasting population. Rishabhbhat (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Name

Link to revert

Kashmiri What is your problem? Do address here. LearnIndology (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You are trying to present folk etymology as an alternative "theory", based on selective quotes from tourist guides and a mid-19th century book. That's rather a problem. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sense. Our work is to present every possible aspect of the origin of name. Whether it is folk based or some other based is not a reason to not add it. In fact every etymology in the world is obscure. And there is no tourist guide book, please re-check the source, and how is old book a concern? LearnIndology (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't you agree that your statement that every etymology in the world is obscure is sufficient to ask you not to edit on etymology anywhere on Wikipedia? As you might know, competency is absolutely required in this project. By the way, yes, a mid-19th century book is of much concern because it was written before modern linguistics was developed. And no, a folk etymology must not be presented as an "alternative theory", much like pseudoscience must not be presented as a scientific theory.

I am also sorry to disappoint you that not every locality name that starts with sri is related to the Sanskrit honorific. Precisely like in this case. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The books of 20th century says the same thing. You are just beating around the bush and wasting my time. If you have any logical argument left, then please do tell. LearnIndology (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Kashmiri. We need high-quality sources from reputed academic publishers, that is also recent. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no need to use a slew of passing mentions or old books. One or two high-quality references for each view should be enough. Regardless, there are several oddities in the current text. I've checked the first three of the eight refs in the section. Ref #13 is to the entry for śrīnagara in Monier–Williams's dictionary, and it's used to support the etymology from Surya. That dictionary mentions no such an etymology, and, in fact, the whole entry is defined as ‘city of Fortune’, [Name] of two towns (one situated in the district of Caunpore, the other in Bundelcund) – it's not about this Srinagar anyway. The quote given for ref #14 (Sufi's book) doesn't appear to be in the text (at least not when I search for it on the google books item linked there). Ref #15 (Rabbani's book) contains exactly the same lengthy passage as ref #14; I can't see the wider context from the google books snippet, but it doesn't appear to be formatted as a quote, so most likely one of the books had plagiarised from the other. We can't cite both here, and we definitely should not support plagiarism. Also, it's unclear, in the wikipedia text, which of the two etymologies these texts are supposed to support. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: has already noted about issues arising from usage of old works in the field of linguistics. Deriving from that and HISTRS, comments about LearnIndology's sources at this version:-

[13] is a 1899 dictionary, which as Uanfala notes, does not support the text.

[14] is actually this book, a 1948 work. (The '74 ed is a reprint). Where is the quote?

[15] is by some local publisher and a non-acclaimed scholar. No reviews of the work, either. Hardly any citations to this work. How does this pass HISTRS?

[16] is a 1915 travelogue by a colonial official. How does this pass HISTRS? What did you learn at the talk-page concerned with Persecution of Hindus?

[17] is by some high-school-teacher whose claim to fame lies in ornithology and allied affairs. The book has been hardly cited by anyone. So, obviously, it has to be HISTRS in linguistics.

[18] is a sociology book by a state-university professor. No reviews and very few cites.

[19] is by "Aamir Publication, Srinagar" which seems to be yet another local publication house. The only review notes :- ...There are real shortcomings. Khan's explanations are not always consistent. Some of his conclusions do not seem grounded in the text. Footnotes and bibliography are extensive but difficult to reconcile and utilize. In the end the reader grasps Srinagar's past uncertainly but may appreciate more fully the socioeconomic complexities underlying modern Kashmir's turbulent history. Obviously, it is the best HISTRS in linguistics.

[20] is a 1859 work. Sure, that's a great HISTRS. Do you (again) need individual critiques by modern scholars?

TrangaBellam (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Uanfala: You searched in a wrong place. Look up sūryanagara in MW instead.[5] TrangaBellam, MW is an infinitely more reputable tertiary source in the subject of Indian etymologies than the Spanish tourist and the ornitolgist combined who happen to promote śrī + nagara.

Primarily, should the city's name originate from śrī + nagara, the original ś would have been retained today, since the Kashmiri language has largely retained the original three sibilant consonants s ś ṣ. Yet, MW records it with s while having zero records for "ś".

My OR: Also, the cult of Surya (incl. of the Suryavamshi kings) appears to have been much more widespread in the Valley in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium than the cult of Lakshmi (also did not come across her being called "Śri" in the region).

All in all, the sūrya- etymology appears much more correct to me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, I will note that blind reliance on MW ought not be practised. Notwithstanding postcolonial critique of his methodology, we have other fundamental issues at play. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri, the dictionary entry cited in the article was that for śrīnagara, not for sūryanagara. Of course, that could be corrected. However, MW only states that sūryanagara was what the city was called, he doesn't explicitly make that the source of the modern-day name (though obviously, this lends credence to such an etymology). – Uanfala (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The only sensible conclusion is that the form śrīnagara to denote the Kashmiri city did not occur in any text that MW included. TrangaBellam Noted, thank you. However, I don't think the few mistakes in MW's dictionary invalidate the entire work or turn random tourists or journalists into authorities on onomastics. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that's your personal opinion User:Kashmiri

User:TrangaBellam, we have enough reliable refs to support the section, what is your concern then? LearnIndology (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Which source (other than MW) do you wish to defend? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say that we don't really need HISTRS for etymologies. Anybody that can reliably record the local tradition is good enough, but let us note that it is the local tradition and be done with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, we need even better sources for an etymology than for most other things. Even if the competing popular traditions don't disagree, as they do here, they always tend to be fanciful folk etymologies that are very seldom linguistically sound. On an unrelated note, do we really need a separate article section for that? The various names of a place will naturally arise in any discussion of its history, and there any additional notes about the names can be given. – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are declaring the folk etymology route explicitly, I have no issues. Otherwise, the guideline need to be followed. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No. Local tradition is what the local people believe, generally passed down through generations. It is not "folk etymology". Well, it could have been folk whenever somebody came up with it. But we can't do any better than that. Serious scholars are not going to waste their energy digging through the historical records to find the true meanings of names. Unless something really really rides on it (Gurjaradesa, for a prominent example), nobody sweats over names.

"Srinagar" is as ordinary as a name can be: "auspicious town", "great town", "beautiful town", "wealthy town", "prosperous town", take your pick. All of them would be equally valid. But if somebody says there is a local tradition saying it was named after the sun, well, that is interesting. I would mention it even if it sounds far-fetched. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ermm.. no. There have been literally thousands of papers unpicking the etymologies of anodyne daily words of one or another branch of Indo-European. If you find it hard to believe that serious scholars would be devoting energy to that, just pick any decent etymological dictionary and look at the references section. Normally, even more attention tends to be directed at names of prominent places, because that's no long of interest just to linguists. If there's anything reliably sourced that we could say about the origin of the city's name, we should say it. If we're only reporting popular conceptions, we should be explicit that it's popular conceptions that we're reporting. But what we can't do is take popular conceptions and present them as actual etymologies sanctioned by "scholarly interpretation". – Uanfala (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, looking at GMD Sufi, I notice that he explicitly denies that it means the "city of sun". (pp.47-48) So there goes that theory. He also says that it was simply called the "city of Kashmir" during the Muslim rule, but I notice Addisthan in Al-Biruni. He says the old name was reinstated during the Sikh rule. Do we believe that? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Ehmm... Are you suggesting that toponymy, and more broadly, onomastics are equal in worth to folk etymology? My hope is that someone who conflates astrology and astronomy won't try to write encyclopaedic articles about planets...

Here it comes that GMD Sufi was a historian, not a linguist. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we have linguists claiming that Srinagar means the "city of the sun"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Monier-Williams was one, and a WP:TERTIARY source, too. Primarily, however, I am not aware of any source that would attest the form śrīnagara prior to modern times, and in Hindi only (since the Kashmiri language has it srinagar). — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Monier-Williams isn't saying that śrīnagara means the "city of the sun". He is talking about the meaning of surya-nagara, and saying that it is commonly called "siri-nagar". I have no idea what this is supposed to mean? Is there a place called surya-nagar, which is also called siri-nagar? Or is he just rationalising the 19th century Kashmiri interpretation of the name?

śrīnagara appears dozens of times in Stein's Rajatarangini [6] (not that often in the original text, but that is because it wasn't called so for the majority of history. It was called pravarapura, adhishthana etc.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And the footnote 8 on this page (volume 2) is brilliant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

An interesting catch. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the references cited -- they appear reliable and, thus, can be used without any issue. If any one of you have an alternate theory about the etymology, then please add it. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you look at TrangaBellam's comments above? – Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Good evening, I wanted to point out one factual point regarding Srinagar. In Kashmiri language itself, Srinagar is called "Sirīnagar" ( سِریٖنَگَر or سِری نَگَر). Sirī means Sun in Kashmiri language. Imranqazi90 (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Restart

Returning to this issue after a while. I think Monier Williams entry is quite irrelevant because it is about surya-nagara, but there is no evidence that this city was ever called by that name. Can somebody provide sources for its name in Kashmiri and its Kashmiri meaning? @Imranqazi90, Uanfala, Kashmiri, TrangaBellam, and LearnIndology: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Monier-Williams's meanings of śrī are worthwhile. Apparently the Rigvedic meaning is "to burn, flame, diffuse light" (H1). Classical meaning is "śrī in the sense of 'diffusing light or radiance'; light, luster, radiance, splendor, glory, beauty, grace, loveliness" (H3). Note that there is no mention of goddess Laskshmi or wealth. Since Asoka also built a Buddhist monastery next to the city, the idea that he named it after goddess Lakshmi would also be far-fetched.

Finally, the meaning of "radiance", "diffuse light" connects it to the later day Kashmiri meaning of sun, even though in Sanskrit itself śrī is not used to refer to sun. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Recent reverts about 1868 census

TI, please gain a consensus in favor if you wish to reinsert the content. My edit-summary is self-explanatory. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The line cited to CSP needs to be tempered down following the lead of our article on exodus. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Valley of Kashmir by Lawrence is a primary as well as Raj era source. Apart from that, the third party sources have ignored the claim made by Lawrence. LearnIndology (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot insert random data from one article's footnotes, which cited the wrong page number. I will not oppose you in adding the 1891 data, as long as you do not introduce an artificial contrast. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

LearnIndology, In 1891 census, the net population of Srinagar was recorded as 1,18,960. Of this, there were 26,069 KH (and 92,575 KM). Therefore, %(KH) = 21.9% TrangaBellam (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Good find. I'll add 1891 data. LearnIndology (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

the term Srinagar comes from two words Siri meaning sun in Kashmiri language and nagar meaning city or town.

.So i would kindly ask indians to kindly stop writing that it is Surya nagar . KasheerParast (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that you elaborate your concerns here, with proper sources, instead of ad hominem attacks on supposed 'Indian' editors. For your information a lot of editors maintaining this article are not Indians. Good luck. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Largest city in Himalayas

As per 2021 Nepal census, the population of Kathmandu city is 845,767 only which is below than its count in 2011 Nepal census 975,000. Srinagar is now the largest city proper in Himalayas. Though the urban metropolitan population of the densely populated Kathmandu valley is 2.9 million as per 2021 Nepal census. So, experts decide either which is larger? city population or metro (incl. suburb) population?

Source: Central Bureau of Statistics 2022 https://web.archive.org/web/20220206104652/https://cbs.gov.np/wp-content/upLoads/2022/01/Final%20Preliminary%20Report%20of%20Census%202021%20Newfinal.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:1A00:B010:A349:C45B:F749:F66:83F0 (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Right. Kathmandu city is merely 50 km2 in size, but the UA is 900 km2; Srinagar city is 300 km2, and UA is almost 800 km2. So obviously, the city propers are not comparable, because the Nepali government defines Kathmandu city’s size quite narrowly. Kathmandu also has many satellite cities, Srinagar not so much. The UAs are still comparable, so I’ll update the sentence accordingly. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

add Pravarasena II as founder 2601:81:4080:9C10:451F:83EB:1BE1:90EC (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022

ADD Iqbal Memorial Institute in the List of Schools in Srinagar 2405:201:5504:60D2:F93D:88C4:E73A:5A61 (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

ADD "Iqbal Memorial Institute" in the list of Schools in Srinagar 2405:201:5504:60D2:F93D:88C4:E73A:5A61 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It must be notable enough for it's own article to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add Mata Kheer Bhawani as one of tourist spots

Maya Kheer Bhawani has a rich history as thousands of Kashmiri Pandits visit the holy temple every year during Ashtami. 2405:201:4017:80DB:80A0:E9D:30CB:BC2D (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Srinagar

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Srinagar's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ladakh-britannica-current":

• From Leh: "Ladakh", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, 1 March 2021, archived from the original on 7 April 2022, retrieved 2 April 2022, Ladakh, large area of the northern and eastern Kashmir region, northwestern Indian subcontinent. Administratively, Ladakh is divided between Pakistan (northwest), as part of Gilgit-Baltistan, and India (southeast), as part of Ladakh union territory (until October 31, 2019, part of Jammu and Kashmir state); in addition, China administers portions of northeastern Ladakh.
• From Jammu and Kashmir (union territory): Briticannica, Eds Encycl. (1 March 2021), "Ladakh", Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., retrieved 2 April 2022, Ladakh, large area of the northern and eastern Kashmir region, northwestern Indian subcontinent. Administratively, Ladakh is divided between Pakistan (northwest), as part of Gilgit-Baltistan, and India (southeast), as part of Ladakh union territory (until October 31, 2019, part of Jammu and Kashmir state); in addition, China administers portions of northeastern Ladakh.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The NPOV description of the capitals per 2019 consensus

@UnpetitproleX: Please note that the 2019 consensus was for the larger regions, the administrative subdivisions, the districts, and the capitals.

As you can see, there were 6 admins aboard and in addition quite a few others. It would be very odd that the large subdivisions would be described in NPOV language, but their capitals would not. We had already thought about this in 2019.

Please do not edit war; otherwise, I will get admin help, not least from those that were a part of the consensus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact, as you will appreciate, the consensus devolved down to district capitals, and Srinagar is that too. See Kashmir_division#Districts Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS clearly states that consensus is achieved through discussion or editing, and is modified through discussion or editing. The 2019 consensus is not recent, nor are these obscure pages that may have inadvertently missed an application of such an old consensus. On the capitals pages the opposite is true, the consensus has never been applied in the nearly 5 years that it has existed, and in fact editors, including those who were involved in building the 2019 consensus have consistently reverted to the current wording (Srinagar 1; Srinagar 2; Leh: “consensus only for top-level pages”; Muzaffarabad; Gilgit1; Gilgit2 there are likely more instances).

The 2019 consensus has only ever been applied to the subdivision pages, where it has survived. It is clear the consensus has evolved. You cannot claim consensus based on a 5 year old discussion whose results were never applied to these pages.

I would request you to stop edit warring, follow WP:BRD, try to change the established consensus for these pages through discussion as is required and please do get administrative involvement if you feel it necessary. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no question of BRD when there is a consensus in place. Pinging @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, Uanfala, DeluxeVegan, Johnuniq, Ms Sarah Welch, Lingzhi.Renascence, and Titodutta: Can you all please take care of this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect this editor has appeared on this page to spruce it up in time for India's G20-related meeting in Srinagar which begins today. China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia are boycotting the meeting as they do not consider India to have sovereignty over Indian-administered Kashmir (let alone the Pakistani-administered). Kashmir remains the oldest dispute before the UN. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The US, UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, and Japan do not consider India to have undisputed sovereignty over Indian-administered Kashmir either, but as they now consider India to be a valuable ally against the larger western conflict with China, they don't bring it up publicly. All have voted to censure India in the UN Security Council resolutions of the 1950s. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hah, just saw this comment. I have to laugh. You appeared just before the G20 tourism meeting to “make uniform” Kashmir capitals, and yet it is me who you accuse of sprucing it up for the event. As for the boycotts by China and the three OIC countries, I don’t recall any of those countries—with the exception of China which is also party to the dispute and similarly boycotted events in Leh and Arunachal Pradesh—calling their absence a boycott. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh is not considered disputed territory by the US (or by other countries such as Australia). But Kashmir is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The dispute is not between China and USA (or Australia). The dispute is between China and India. Other countries can take sides, that doesn’t make them party to the dispute. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX: Your counter-examples in the diffs above are not accurate. Uanfala had reverted an edit because it had "Indian occupied Kashmir" in it, which is not a part of the consensus. As for Kautilya3, they are on record supporting the consensus:

Looks good. Thanks for generalising it to districts and district capitals. I agree that the dates can be omitted. "Disputed between India, Pakistan and China" should be good enough. My main concerning the overwhelming amount of quotations. I suggest that we use the full portfolio of quotations for the top-level pages, and limit to 1-2 quotations for the lower level pages. The full list of citations can still be present in all of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That people may not be always applying the consensus consistently is not grounds for you to declare it null and void. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging also @Kautilya3, Gotitbro, and Arjayay: who have edited these capitals articles to keep in place the long-standing wording. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Also noting that I’m not declaring the 2019 consensus “null and void,” but pointing to the fact that this consensus has been effectively limited to the subdiv articles and never been applied to these article (the capitals) where the established consensus for the past half decade is not the 2019 one, which is where you seek to move it to five years after the fact. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The original consensus was limited to lvl-1 administrative divisions (in the sense that it attracted no opposition), i.e., Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Aksai Chin. Whether it has evolved in practice beyond that I cannot say but this is what I was clearly in consent back then for. The problem in putting in application such consensus to lvl-2 and below (where the consensus then was not clearly established) is that it is unnecessary and not what is generally followed on enwiki where de-facto descriptions follow lvl-2, see for example Artsakh, Western Saharan, Palestinian etc. territories at the levels therein. The issue of less watchers and thus extra disruption on such articles also abounds. I would not see a problem with applying this consensus to all lvl-1 capital articles as well (though a more streamlined version would be preferred e.g. "country x-administered" rather than horning the whole dispute in) but I have always not been inline to support this application to divisions (lvl-2), districts (lvl-3) etc., a cumbersome process no one is willing to enforce (did propose a EPP on all Kashmir-related pages if such broad-reaching consensus is to be enforced). Gotitbro (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Thanks for your response. I don't necessarily agree that the consensus was limited to the large subdivisions, as there was extensive discussion lasting nearly 10 days on the extensions of the proposal. See my reply to UnpetitproleX (above or below). In fact editors such as Kautilya3 were explicitly against limiting the NPOV wording to the large regions of Kashmir, as they thought the POV-promotion to exist more on the smaller, disregarded, pages. I will examine what the Western Saharan and Palestine pages to per your suggestion. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gotitbro: for the response. That is also my main contention, a back-door application of almost five four year old consensus to a page where it has never been applied. Thereby putting articles not previously covered by that consensus into it. That’s something that would definitely require a wider discussion than just one editor’s “making uniform” spree. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Gotitbro is objecting to the extension of the consensus to divitions and district, not to capitals, as they say, "I would not see a problem with applying this consensus to all lvl-1 capital articles as well (though a more streamlined version would be preferred e.g. "country x-administered" rather than horning the whole dispute in)" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@UnpetitproleX: The discussions took place on WT:INDIA in August and September 2019, beginning with

• (i) my original announcement on 15 August 2019] and discussion
• (ii) More discussion Arbitrary break
• (iii)Rfc phrasing first cut on 17 August 2019 which extended the proposal to (a) Large regions (b) Administrative divisions (c) Districts and (d) District capitals
• (iv) A long discussion from 18 to 26 August 2019
• (v) RfC wording version 2 and discussion of 26 and 27th August 2019.
• (vi) Uniform format for infobox of Kashmir-related first-order division articles which lasted from 14 to 18 September 2019, and which was about maps in the first order subdivisions (after I had altered the previous CIA maps to show the new Indian divisions of August 2019)

All this involved a great deal of effort, especially during a time when I was working on readying the FA India for its Wikipedia front page appearance on Gandhi's 150th birth anniversary on 2 October 2019. I wrote several new sections and revised the whole FA, involving hundreds of edits.

For an effort that involved such levels of precision, I recommend that you not describe the discussion to have taken place "five years ago," "five year old," "five years ago" and "half a decade."

August and September 2019 to May 22, 2023 is three years and eight months. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

And this was a period which began three months before COVID appeared and affected everyone's lives, including those of WP editors, and today is only 11 days after the COVID pandemic ended on 11 May 2023. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Nearly four years it is, not five. Five is for how long it has been since an elected government ruled over the then-state, now UT. Must have confused the two. Or something. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not nearly four years, it is a little over three and a half years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don't be familiar, casual, or flippant with me. What is "Or something?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It has been more than 3.7 years, which I rounded off to “nearly four.” I apologise if that is flippant. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is "Or something" that is flippant if not also meaningless for talk page discussions. I am not your chat group friend. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• (responding to the ping) For those coming in late (as I am), here are the two versions of the lede sentence being discussed:

Version A: Srinagar (English: /ˈsriːnəɡər/ , Kashmiri pronunciation: [siriːnagar]) is the largest city and the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, a region administered by India as a union territory and part of the larger disputed region of Kashmir.

and

Version B: Srinagar (English: /ˈsriːnəɡər/ , Kashmiri pronunciation: [siriːnagar]) is the largest city and the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, India.

Even setting aside the RFC on the topic (mainly because I haven't refreshed my memory of what the exact scope of the consensus was), Version A reads better to me since it does a good job of presenting a complicated picture in a pretty succinct manner. For example, Version B forgets to mention that the Jammy and Kashmir referenced in the sentence is a union territory, which is simply necessary to state. And unlike, say, the lede sentence of Port Blair, here it would be better (in terms of neutrality) to say that J&K is a union territory "administered by India" rather than "of India", acknowledging the regional dispute. And as soon as we use that careful "administered by" phrasing, it behooves us to provide a link to the Kashmir dispute, so as to not leave the reader hanging. And once we do that, we are essentially back to the Version A language.

(TL;DR)  Unless there is a positive case made that Version B is preferable on it merits, I would recommend sticking with Version A. Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Abecedare: for a cogently argued and to-the-point reply. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: Here’s what Encyclopaedia Britannica says in the introductory paragraph of their Srinagar page: Srinagar, city, summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory (Jammu is the winter capital), northern India, situated in the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent. The city lies along the banks of the Jhelum River at an elevation of 5,200 feet (1,600 metres) in the Vale of Kashmir. As for version B, I’m not married to its wording. But version A has its own problems too: it introduces the dispute in the first line with “the larger disputed region of Kashmir” but offers nothing on the dispute. Obviously, any detail about the dispute in the very first line would be highly undue and out of place. An alternative would be a footnote after “…by India as a UT.” UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

But Britannica's flagship article Kashmir, not only begins with the dispute, but it has this up top:

Recent News

• May 22, 2023, 12:53 PM ET (AP)

• G20 delegates begin meeting in disputed Kashmir, with region's intense security largely out of view

• Delegates from the Group of 20 leading rich and developing nations began a meeting on tourism in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Monday that was condemned by China and Pakistan, as authorities reduced the visibility of security in the disputed region’s main city

• May 21, 2023, 11:26 PM ET (AP)

• With G20 event, India seeks to project normalcy in disputed Kashmir

• As India prepares to host a meeting of tourism officials from the Group of 20 in the disputed region of Kashmir, authorities have deployed elite commandos and stepped up security in the region’s largest city

In other words, not just China, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Indonesia which boycotted the even, but also the US, Canada, Mexico, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Australia do not accept India's sovereignty over any portion of Kashmir, including the capital city. All have voted against India in UN Security council resolutions, many of which did not pass because the Soviet Union exercised its veto in support of Nehru's India. Every inch of the former princely state is disputed territory. How can we not mention that in the lead paragraph? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The rest of the countries sent their local reps which is hardly an endorsement of anything. See:

• Zaman, Sarah (May 24, 2024), "India's Hosting of G20 Meeting in Disputed Kashmir Raises Questions of International Acceptance", Voice of America, While most countries sent just local staff to the tourism conference, Pakistani allies China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey skipped the event. However, only China, which also has a border dispute with neighboring India, issued a condemnation. ... Fernand de Varennes, U.N. special rapporteur on minority issues, recently criticized the meeting, saying that by hosting the session in Kashmir, "India is seeking to normalize what some have described as a military occupation.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

To structure the lead based on “recent news” Associated Press reports about the G20 meeting would be WP:RECENTISM. It’s also deflecting from the Britannica Srinagar article, which does not mention the dispute, neither do Britannica’s Jammu, Leh or Gilgit articles. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

And as it turns out, Indonesia did attend the meeting, after all. But yes, the meeting is hardly the game changer that the Indian government contends it to be. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I am going to stay uninvolved and not express an opinion regarding the article (actually, I don't have an opinion as I am not sufficiently familiar with the background or the history of related discussions at Wikipedia). However, the first set of changes in UnpetitproleX's diff adds two flag icons in the infobox. I see an edit summary by Fowler&fowler with "no flagicons per Kashmir-infobox consensus of September 2019 and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG last sentence". I do not know what standard procedure is in this area, but F&F's edit summary looks plausible to me. @UnpetitproleX: Do you still want flags? What is the justification? Johnuniq (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, John.. I will wait until tomorrow (24th) morning my time (US Eastern) to give others a chance to reply and then propose something in light of the various responses, including yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: There’s no question of what I want re:flags. If you look at my responses, or my edit summary here and here, the issue is something else. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The idiomatic phrase "there is no question of" means "there is no chance of something happening or of someone doing something." Please rephrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course I can see that the main issue is something else. However, I believe it is useful to address simple things first, particularly when they have a concrete proposal (include a particular two flags in the infobox) and the guidelines should be reasonably clear. It's not a good sign that UnpetitproleX has not give an answer that addresses the point. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The guidelines at MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS are clear: “where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not.” The established consensus was to include them. They were removed on the basis of a consensus which had never been applied to this page. It is this invention of consensus rather than the removal of flags that I reverted. So the question of whether or not I want flags (much less whether I still want them) is irrelevant. I personally have no preference wrt flags. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How was the established consensus one of having the infobox flags in the towns when they were never a part of the Wikipedia articles on the regions of which the towns were the capitals? In the towns, there was no consensus, just occasional, scattered, editing, yielding a small handful of examples. It is nothing like the dozens and dozens of times over three years and eight months that the consensus on the large regions has been maintained. None of the editors you pinged to establish this consensus has replied, except Gotitbro, who has said he sees the extension the the capital cities to be unproblematic. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This image which is present on WP:CONSENSUS may help you. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Mini-proposal

In light of

• (i) the existing consensus on the format of the lead sentences and info box of the large subregions of Kashmir, viz. Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, and Aksai Chin, one that has proved capable of being repeatedly put to good use in the last three years and eight months,
• (ii) @Gotitbro:'s suggestion that the application of this consensus to the capital cities of these five regions—which was supported in August 2019, but not practically implemented thereafter on account of a lack of vigilance—is essentially unproblematic, especially if made more concise,
• (iii) @Abecedare: strong a priori argument about Wikipedia neutrality rules leaving us with no option than, for example: "the summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir, a region administered by India as a union territory and part of the larger disputed region of Kashmir."
• (iv) @Johnuniq:'s question, and remark, about infobox flag-icons, and
• (v) @Kautilya3:'s earlier views about the importance of the consensus extending to regions beyond the better-known, larger, regions, to the lesser-known divisions, districts, and capitals,
• I propose that the consensus be extended to capitals of Azad Kashmir (which is the city Muzaffarabad); Gilgit-Baltistan (which is Gilgit city); Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) (which is Srinagar (summer) and Jammu (winter)); and Ladakh (which is jointly Leh and Kargil (note: sparsely populated Aksai Chin does not have any capital) in the following format:

• Muzaffarabad/Gilgit/Srinagar/Jammu/Kargil/Leh is the capital/summer capital/winter capital/joint capital of   Pakistani/Indian/Chinese-administered     self-administrative territory/administrative territory/Union Territory   of Azad Kashmir/Gilgit-Baltistan/Jammu and Kashmir/Ladakh/Aksai Chin   in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir region. (corrected in light of Unprol*X's valid point about the incorrect use of "Himalayan." 23:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC))

I've left some horizontal spaces for ease of comprehension; they won't go in the actual text. By Abecedare's argument, the last noun phrase in the proposal (which could be changed with the use of a comma and some shuffling to the appositive, "a subregion of the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir,") is essential: we can't leave the reader hanging with "—administered," without also addressing a reader's potential puzzlement over why it is only "administered" and not an integral part of. I will soon post something on the format of the infobox and further address Johnuniq's remarks. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox: You can see the NPOV infobox format for Srinagar [here. I will soon add the citations. Note I have changed the map to be consistent with the one in Delhi and the FA Darjeeling. We can't use the pushpin map (e.g. here) as it seems to insinuate sovereignty (besides the fact that it has very little information). I will make similar changes for the other capitals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The Kashmir region, Library of Congress map

Kashmir map Oh, and I just remembered something about the Kashmir-region map, File:Kashmir Region November 2019.jpg. This is a (relatively) lower-res CIA map which is based on a higher-res Library of Congress map. @Uanfala:, for example, had complained that the CIA map was not big enough in extent to give a reader a good idea of the geographical context. (There is a larger inset map of South Asia.) The problem with the LOC map was that it had the old labels from the time when the Kashmir region had not been administratively rearranged by the administering countries. About a year ago, I had updated that map to show the new divisions. It is displayed here. I would like to change the old map to this new one in the five large regions: Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, and Aksai Chin. A-C in particular is much more precisely described in the new map, as is (I think) the Kashmir valley. My personal favorite was the eight-thousander Nanga Parbat whose dramatic Rupal face you can actually see on the map. (It should be somewhere below Gilgit). I recall @RegentsPark: had encouraged me to include the other 8000ers, which I have (all near K2).

I know some of these things should properly be done elsewhere (e.g. WT:INDIA where the original discussions had been held, but I'm flat out of time, and the iron is hot, or there is a tide in the affairs, so we must take it at the flood. If the spell is broken, by moving elsewhere, what's a guarantee that among the unfamiliars that discussion will not sputter, and the discussion will be set back by another year or two or three? Please grant me this benefaction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

PS I've added a second, interactive, map in the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) page (see here). If you click on it you can immediately see the place of J&K in a much larger region. Uanfala had suggested that such a map might go first (up top) and the LOC/CIA map below, but I am reticent about doing that as we already have a longstanding consensus on the CIA map. Changing it to a high-res map on which it is based is a minor change, but essentially replacing it (as the primary) map with another map will create all sorts of issues, including the prospect of redoing the August 2019 consensus. I would rather let it sit as the second map below the LOC/CIA, for which there will be little objection. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

PS2 I've now updated the lead sentences and infoboxes of the capitals, viz. Muzaffarabad, Gilgit, Srinagar, Jammu, Kargil, and Leh to conform to the format described above. None have flag icons in the infobox. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

PS3 I've also updated the large regions infoboxes: Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, and Aksai Chin.. I believe you will like the hi-def LOC map as well as the interactive map in which the regions of interest appear shaded in gray. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

PS4 There are also no emblems, flags, or other markers or implications of sovereignty in the infoboxes.

Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposal in its current form;

• Unlike the administrative subdivisions, the existence of most of which is owed to the dispute and the conflict (for instance, would there be an “Azad” (free) Jammu&Kashmir without the dispute? No), these cities have existed for centuries before the conflict began and will outlive the dispute. Therefore to mention the dispute in the very first line at Leh or Gilgit or Srinagar or the others is highly WP:UNDUE. The dispute can be mentioned and explained in a footnote—including what this dispute is and who is involved—after the first sentence, and thereafter wherever relevant and due in the article(s).

This is amply reflected in reliable tertiary sources (like Britannica). Encyclopaedia Britannica’s articles on the capitals do not mention the dispute, the Kashmir article and the subdivision articles do. Here is what the lead paragraphs of those articles say: Srinagar “Srinagar, city, summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory (Jammu is the winter capital), northern India, situated in the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent. The city lies along the banks of the Jhelum River at an elevation of 5,200 feet (1,600 metres) in the Vale of Kashmir.”; Jammu “Jammu, city, winter capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory, northern India. It lies in the southwestern part of Jammu and Kashmir along the Tawi River, south of Srinagar (the summer capital), and to the north is the Siwalik Range.”; Leh “Leh, town, Ladakh union territory, northern India. The town is located in the valley of the upper Indus River at an elevation of 11,550 feet (3,520 metres), surrounded by the towering peaks of the Ladakh Range (a southeastern extension of the Karakoram Range).”; Gilgit “Gilgit, town in Gilgit-Baltistan, part of the Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region, in the northern Indian subcontinent. It is situated in the Karakoram Range in a narrow valley on the Gilgit River at its confluence with the Hunza River and about 20 miles (32 km) upstream from its confluence with the Indus River.”; they do not have one for Muzzafarbad or Kargil town (but do for Kargil district/region).

• ”Himalayan region of Kashmir”? Leh lies in the Indus valley, in the trans-Himalayas of the Tibetan Plateau. Gilgit lies some miles north of the tri-junction of the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush and the Karakorams, in a valley wedged between the latter two. Jammu is located on the ridges of the Shivalik foothills and partly in the Punjab plain. Only Muzzafarabad, Srinagar and Kargil are in the vicinity of the Himalayas. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The incorrect use of "Himalayan" is a valid point. Having drawn the maps File:The Indus river in the Kashmir region.jpg and File:Kashmir region. LOC 2003626427 - showing sub-regions administered by different countries.jpg, I should have known better, but we all have our bad days. So thank you, I have removed Himalayan from the six capitals' lead sentences and from the mini-proposal above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is true that Srinagar is a city with a history, but in Wikipedia we can't write: "Srinagar is a historical city in the Kashmir region," as its primary notability today that it is the summer capital of an Indian administered region." As user:Abecedare has explained we can't write "Srinagar is the capital of the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, India," as that would violate neutrality; we can't also write, "Srinagar is the capital of the Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir," for we would be leaving the reader puzzling about why it is only administered.

Britannica's articles on these cities and towns are written by general purpose editors. As for recentism, there are plenty references, which are scholarly, and not recent, which refer to the Kashmir dispute in the context of Srinagar. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Britannica's article on Srinagar begins with two bullets

• "Recent News May 22, 2023, 12:53 PM ET (AP)

G20 delegates begin meeting in disputed Kashmir, with region's intense security largely out of view

Delegates from the Group of 20 leading rich and developing nations began a meeting on tourism in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Monday that was condemned by China and Pakistan, as authorities reduced the visibility of security in the disputed region’s main city

• May 21, 2023, 11:26 PM ET (AP)

With G20 event, India seeks to project normalcy in disputed Kashmir

As India prepares to host a meeting of tourism officials from the Group of 20 in the disputed region of Kashmir, authorities have deployed elite commandos and stepped up security in the region’s largest city

and then:

Srinagar, city, summer capital of Jammu and Kashmir union territory (Jammu is the winter capital), northern India, situated in the Kashmir region of the Indian subcontinent.

You should ask them why they have such a clear example of recentism up top.

We also can't use "Indian subcontinent," as it is dated usage these days, South Asia being preferred except in a small handful of geophysics-related situations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

“You should ask them why they have such a clear example of recentism up top.” I didn’t ask them, but I’m guessing it is because it is under a small section titled “Recent news”, located at top of the page. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you produce some of these Srinagar specific scholarly tertiary sources that contradict the Britannica examples? UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As already pointed out by @Gotitbro: this is akin to “horning the dispute in” which they suggested against. And what Abecedare said is that “behooves us to provide a link to the Kashmir dispute, so as to not leave the reader hanging.” The reader is still left hanging about the dispute, without context on what it is and who is involved. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Abecedare said: "here it would be better (in terms of neutrality) to say that J&K is a union territory "administered by India" rather than "of India", acknowledging the regional dispute. And as soon as we use that careful "administered by" phrasing, it behooves us to provide a link to the Kashmir dispute, so as to not leave the reader hanging. And once we do that, we are essentially back to the Version A language.

(TL;DR) Unless there is a positive case made that Version B is preferable on it merits, I would recommend sticking with Version A (which is my version: "a region administered by India as a union territory and part of the larger disputed region of Kashmir.")." I suggest that you make that positive case for something which thus far you have not.

I thank you for the point about "Himalayan" but beyond that you have offered no cogent argument. I will now not be responding to your points Unpe*X, but will await replies from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Status quo on the status of entities in the Kashmir region to be maintained pending future RfCs. Hatting because the discussion is going astray.RegentsPark (comment) 13:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Following due weight as per city-specific reliable terriary source (Britannica) and incorporating the suggestions of both @Abecedare: and @Gotitbro: giving required context to reader about the dispute without unduly "horning the dispute in", here is my counterproposal for the lead sentence (including the footnote): X is the capital/summer capital/winter capital/joint capital of  countryY-administered  [subdivision type] of Z. Where X is Muzaffarabad/Gilgit/Srinagar/Jammu/Kargil/Leh; countryY is Indian/Chinese/Pakistani; [subdivision type] would be self-administrative territory/administrative territory/Union Territory and Z is Azad Kashmir/Gilgit-Baltistan/Jammu and Kashmir/Ladakh. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) For example, for Srinagar it would say: “Srinagar is the summer capital of the Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir.[(in footnote) Jammu and Kashmir is part of the larger Kashmir region, which is the subject of a long-standing territorial dispute among India, Pakistan and China.]” UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC) The location can't be footnoted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) And most people don't know what J&K is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC) But they do know what Kashmir is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Are you saying that the people who know what Kashmir is do not know what ‘Jammu and Kashmir’ is? That sounds logical to you? UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Of course they do not for where would they have gleaned that information? Not from a small fraction of the sources that have mentioned J&K, let alone G-B etc, from 1800 onward. Notice J&K makes a blip only after 1947. See Google ngram viewer Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC) From the 1940s Kashmir has appeared more in the literature than the Himalayas. See Google ngram] So, how will your reader know that Ladakh is not an Indian-administered island in the Indian Ocean? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC) If the Indonesians had turned their historical gripe about the Andamans, especially Nicobar, into a dispute (as Sumatra is nearer geographically, geophysically, and ethnically) than India is, we could have been writing Port Blair is the capital of the Indian-administered Andaman Islands. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Are all these hits about the region? Kashmir is not just the region, it is also the valley, the goat, its wool and the shawl, and even the song. Does that mean we start writing the Himalayas article centred around Kashmir? No, we follow what sources say, and the Britannica Leh article certainly doesn’t even mention Kashmir when referring to the position of Leh. I will also stop responding to you now, just as you said you will to me above, lest this discussion be bludgeoned. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Cashmere is a different spelling. It was the spelling for the region Kashmir during East India Company rule, just as Cawnpore was for Kanpur. See my articles Company rule in India and Darjeeling for older usage. But from the 1940s no one has used Kashmir alone to mean the shawl, wool or the goat. See Google ngrams I responded to you above because you did finally offer an alternative formulation per Abecedare's implied request. But it does not adequately address the various ambiguities of usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Oh and forgot to add the obvious, since the late 1940s, Kashmir is also the conlict. As for ngrams, when the term is qualified with “region,” the valley wins over the region. The valley is also very frequently referred to simply as “Kashmir.” UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC) By the use of the wildcard in the ngram, you may see that "disputed Kashmir" in a noun phrase has most often meant "disputed Kashmir region" in the literature followed by "~ Kashmir territory", "~ Kashmir border", "~ Kashmir state", "~ Kashmir area", "~ Kashmir province," but never with any significance disputed Kashmir valley or disputed Kashmir conflict Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC) In the case of Srinagar, your proposal would read: "Srinagar is the summer capital of the Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir (with a footnote: where Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the larger Kashmir region, which is the subject of a long-standing territorial dispute among India, Pakistan and China." Your version says nothing about where "Jammu and Kashmir" is. My version says: Srinagar is the summer capital of the Indian-administered union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the disputed Kashmir region. Most people know where Kashmir is. Most people do not know what J&K, Ladakh, G-B, AK or AC are. In my version if they want to know anything more about Kashmir, including the dispute, they can click on the link. As for Gotitbro, I have no idea what they mean by "horning the dispute." It is not a word I would use in a talk page conversation. It has too many vague, and sometimes, dated meanings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) On the contrary, most people know where India, Pakistan, and China are; most people do not know where Kashmir is. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) The only "India" in your version is "Indian"-administered. Again, how will your reader know (see above) that Ladakh is not an Indian-administered island in the Indian ocean? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC) The Delhi article’s lead, as written by you: “Delhi, officially the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, is a city and a union territory of India containing New Delhi, the capital of India.” Did you not ask yourself while writing it, how does one know Delhi is not an Indian island in the Indian ocean. It’s clear you’re trying to find issues for the sake of finding issues. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC) But we can't write "Ladakh is a union territory of India," ie. use "India" as the locator. Ladakh is only Indian-administered which requires a reference to where it lies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Or the Mumbai article, which says in its lead sentence: “Mumbai is the capital city of the Indian state of Maharashtra.” Readers are not left wondering whether Maharashtra is an Indian Island in the Indian ocean. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC) As for Aksai Chin, the proposal doesn’t apply to it (neither does yours) because it doesn’t have a capital. And if somebody knows where Kashmir is, you can assume they will also know where ‘Jammu and Kashmir’ and ‘Azad Kashmir’ would be. It’s not like we are removing maps from the articles, or the descriptions of the locations (for example, the very next line at Gilgit says “The city is located in a broad valley near the confluence of the Gilgit River and the Hunza River.”) UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Kashmir is a BIG dispute because tensions there are always high (although it does not seem like it when looking at it from our comfy homes) and soldiers from all sides die every now and then. The disputed status of Kashmir cannot be pushed aside into a footnote, and it is a good learning for readers. Fayninja (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Yes, I agree Fayninja. Kashmir is the oldest dispute before the United Nations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) @Fayninja: Thanks for the comment, and welcome to wikipedia. On wikipedia, we follow what reliable sources say, and tertiary sources like Britannica are used to determine due weight. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC) My comment was based on these articles: Search for "Kashmir" | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au). If you can find reliable reports of peace in the valley from recent times, then the Kashmir conflict does not need to find mention on an article on Srinagar as that would not reflect the current situation, whatever that may be. Fayninja (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC) @UnpetitproleX, I also understand your perspective which is in line with other encyclopedias and wiki articles. Perhaps, we can agree on a lead layout similar to Bakhmut, Jerusalem. Fayninja (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC) @Fayninja: The conflict is notable, ofcourse, but we are talking about city articles here. The conflict will require mention duly and where relevant. For that we need city-specific tertiary sources that will determine due weight. Your search results are about the larger region, which is quite large and diverse. But even there, where Srinagar comes up it is referred to as “capital of Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir” (e.g. here). Jerusalem is not comparable, because it is subject of a dispute specific to the city in the wider conflict, whereas Leh, Gilgit, Srinagar etc are not. Thus the wider conflict has to highlighted in a manner that is reflected in tertiary sources, like here and here. The footnote adequately gives immediate context to “Indian/Pakistani-administered” without violating WP:DUE. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC) I am sorry but the conflict is still ongoing and as such, it cannot be ignored as elaborated here by the Centre for Preventative Action which states, "although both countries have maintained a fragile cease-fire since 2003, they regularly exchange fire across the contested border, known as the Line of Control. Both sides accuse the other of violating the cease-fire and claim to be shooting in response to attacks." This was last updated on April 25, 2023. Furthermore, linking articles is a good measure to broaden the understanding of readers. (WP:MOSLINK) Fayninja (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC) The conflict article is Kashmir conflict. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) It is not the Kashmir conflict which is the long standing Indian government position; it is Kashmir dispute linked to a subsection of the Kashmir page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC) There’s a difference between the Kashmir conflict and Kashmir dispute? @Kautilya3: and @TrangaBellam: since you two have experience writing and editing history articles related to the dispute, what is this difference and why do the two point to two different pages? UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Again the UN syntax is Kashmir dispute. The Indian government's is Kashmir conflict. The Indians don't want to admit that there is anything to dispute beyond what began with the fighting. The plebiscite and the various Indian governments' attempts to dodge it for 75 years is an example. They have known that any referendum, whether in all of Kashmir, in Indian J&K, or even in the Kashmir division will cause its loss to India in a New York minute whether or not it goes to Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC) All territory of India is owned by the Government of India and by extension to all Indian peoples. Unless a bill in parliament or a nation-wide referendum grants independence to Kashmir, it cannot be separated. Just because Kashmiris happen to form the majority community residing on that land, they are not conferred with any special rights. This is the highest form inclusivity and equality. Fayninja (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC) @Fayninja: Your musings about (imaginary) land ownership, about "extensions" and about "highest form of inclusivity" are quite original indeed. But here, we're grappling with an actual legal situation and working on the most appropriate wording to capture it neutrally. — kashmīrī TALK 19:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Yes, sorry lol, right back on track, where were we? To sum up my point about this talk, the Kashmir conflict would be interesting for readers to read about, and I support linking this page to it. Fayninja (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) @Fayninja: I personally do not think that someone living in, say Manipur, would have much skin in the Kashmir game unless, ofcourse, they are from any part of that territory, or have family or friends living there. The latter part of your statement I agree with, just because ethnic Kashmiris form the majority (though only in the Indian part, that too by a very slim margin), they shouldn’t (and for the most part, don’t) have special rights not enjoyed by other ethnicities of the region. That’s partly why, I believe, people in Jammu and Ladakh have always asserted their distinct identity. But as Kashmiri already said, that’s not the point of this discussion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) @UnpetitproleX: If going only by tertiary sources as a measure of due weight and no personal opinions of editors, then your argument is on a very strong footing. I suggest starting a new talk because this has gotten too messy before you request an RfC. Fayninja (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Support the initiative. A very balanced introductory sentence, and Fowler&Fowler's proposal improves it even more (Kashmir must be mentioned early in the lead IMO). — kashmīrī TALK 17:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC) This uniform format will apply to five other cities including Leh and Jammu. We need an introductory sentence that would be appropriate for all of them. We can have the larger region mentioned on Srinagar’s lead in the second sentence without violating WP:DUE both here and more so on the other cities, with the dispute mentioned in the language of the subdivisions consensus duly in the footnote and elsewhere in the article body. I will incorporate your suggestion and edit accordingly. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Take Leh for example: the Britannica article does not place Kashmir region in the lead, let alone in the introductory sentence—establishing weight for us. But even in other reliable sources (including scholarly ones, especially the more recent ones) such as this, this, this, here and here etc, descriptions of Leh are not in terms of Kashmir. It is important for this to be reflected in the article. Our Leh article even lacks a proper lead, the 'lead too short' banner flashing on top, I will try to fix that as well. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Please don't make edits in the article unless there is consensus for them. Thus far it is against. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Kashmiri did not say anything that would allow you to make the kinds of edits you have just made (en masse) in the leads of Srinagar, Leh, Gilgit, Muzaffarabad, and Jammu and thereby disrupt the intent of a Wikiprojects India and Pakistan consensus. Pinging @Kashmiri: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC) It is par for the course for you. You disappear for a week, and when the discussion has gone stale, reappear and make quick edits to claim a nonexistent consensus. Please don't do this again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Can @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Johnuniq, and Vanamonde93: please examine UnpetitproleX's edits? I've had it with him. His India-POV editing, low-grade it might be, is creating false histories in the Himalaya-related pages. He might have some connection with another editor whose name I'm blanking on, but RegentsPark will remember, who also wanted to remove the sentence about the sovereignty of the Himalayas being disputed in the lead of Himalayas. Immensely frustrated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC) How am I supposed to do any productive work on Wikipedia when half my time is being spent cleaning up after editors who promote false histories? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC) You should be given administrative rights for the amount of work you put in. No questions. Fayninja (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I have asked you before and I’m asking you again not to assume my gender. Do not continue to use your assumed gender pronouns for me. Thanks. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Please read Carol Gilligan before you make that argument. We have three adult daughters and none are slouches. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Please read WP:EDPRONOUNS. I have politely asked you once before, and I am asking you a second time now, to not assume my gender and pronouns. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I did not do it knowingly. I'll try not to do it again, but like I said, please read Carol Gilligan (whom I last ran into in a Sainsbury's in Cambridge, England, in 1993) in particular her In a Different Voice. Again, we have three adult daughters and none is a slouch. The lady doth protest too much, methinks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC) It is hard for me to believe that you’re not doing it intentionally, given that I the last time I asked you not to do it you called my request "garbage". You may need to update your understanding of gender. And congratulations on reproducing having children. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC) @UnpetitproleX: How do you know our daughters are biological and not adopted? You keep making inordinately rude remarks. Please stop the nonsense. Remove those pathetic remarks. I don't mean strike. Pronto Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC) I don’t see how "congratulations" is an inordinately (or at all) rude response to somebody who is repeatedly telling me they have "three adult daughters." But I can see how repeatedly telling somebody you have daughters who are not slouches and implying through that they are a slouch and they cannot be woman after they have asked you not to use gendered pronouns for them, is rude. Also given your elephant-like memory, how did you forget not to use gendered pronouns for me after I explicitly asked you not to, but insult me while at it just as you did the first time? UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Please do not remove my responses like you just did. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) No not strike, or insouciantly and immaturely rewording, "Congratulations on reproducing" to "Congratulations on having children" in your edit Please remove them altogether. @El C, RegentsPark, Abecedare, and Vanamonde93: what is Wikipedia becoming? Longstanding productive editors have to put up with relentless immature bickering by unknowns? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Pinging @UnpetitproleX: as well. This is the giddy limit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Hey, what do you think about removing the word "administered" from "Indian-administered" in the context of Srinagar? By doing so, the statement would read as follows: "Srinagar is the largest city and the summer capital of the Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the disputed Kashmir region." Personally, I find the term "administered" somewhat vague, as it may imply that India's sovereignty over the region is incomplete, despite the Indian flag proudly flying over Lal Chowk. The use of the term "Indian-administered" is often employed to highlight the disputed nature of the region, acknowledging the differing perspectives on its political status. Nevertheless, it is worth considering alternative ways to express this information, especially when the goal is to avoid any potential implications of incomplete sovereignty. Fayninja (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC) "Administered" is settle usage, both in WP and elsewhere, e.g. Britannica whose article on K2 says, "K2 is located in the Karakoram Range and lies partly in a Chinese-administered enclave of the Kashmir region within the Uygur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang, China, and partly in the Gilgit-Baltistan portion of Kashmir under the administration of Pakistan." You'll be wasting your time and others'. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) If you think "administered" in Britannica is applied only to Pakistan and China, see their article on Kashmir, which states, "Administered by India are the southern and southeastern portions, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The Indian- and Pakistani-administered portions are divided by a “line of control” agreed to in 1972, although neither country recognizes it as an international boundary." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Hmmm...The statements are different though if you read between the lines, the context does not match-up. We are referring specifically to the Union Territory of J&K, not the larger Kashmir region. Anyway, this is how Britannica describes it: "Jammu and Kashmir, union territory of India (until October 31, 2019, a state), located in the northern part of the Indian subcontinent centred on the plains around Jammu to the south and the Vale of Kashmir to the north. The union territory is part of the larger region of Kashmir, which has been the subject of dispute between India, Pakistan, and China since the partition of the subcontinent in 1947." Fayninja (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC) It's not the WP consensus. The admins below have supported the consensus of 2019. Like I said, you'll be wasting time, and now you've begun to waste mine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC) (responding to ping) I haven't kept in touch with all the discussion following my comments on May 22 but taking a quick glance, UnpetitproleX I don't see that the discussion concluded or that it landed on a consensus for the version you implemented. Given the strong feelings, various versions being floated about, narrow participation, and the many articles that may be affected, I believe a well-advertised/centralized RFC is needed if the consensus of the 2019 RFC are to be updated/clarified Fwiw, personally, I don't think it would be a good investment of individual/community time and effort but that is ultimately for the individuals/community to decide. Abecedare (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC) @Abecedare: yes, indeed, a WP:RfC is required. Sources are being ignored here, quite blatantly. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) It is a straightforward corollary of the 2019 consensus which already had phrasing for capitals, even district capitals. Mentioning the Kashmir dispute was an integral part of that phrasing. How then is Un*X attempting to push it into a footnote? It is very similar to what Pankykh (talk · contribs) was doing on the Himalayas page, and which @RegentsPark: and I had to battle. Compare Pankykh's history with UnpetitproleX (talk · contribs)'s. The latter appears precisely when the former disappears. (And examine Unpetitprole (talk · contribs)) Ping @Abecedare: The MO's are similar. RP will see the same vehemence in relation to the Kashmir "dispute." Both have the same behavioral pattern of disappearing for a week or two and then reappearing when the discussion is stale. See Talk:Himalayas/Archive_4 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Whether this is something for user:Bbb23 to examine, I can't say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) It is a former account of mine, I have posted the circumstances of its very brief usage on its talk page. If you wish to take this to sock investigation, you are welcome to. If you have concerns regarding my contributions, take to WP:ANI. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC) As for the 2019 consensus, another editor above, @Gotitbro: has pointed out “The original consensus was limited to lvl-1 administrative divisions (in the sense that it attracted no opposition), i.e., Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Aksai Chin. Whether it has evolved in practice beyond that I cannot say but this is what I was clearly in consent back then for.” UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC) And as Abecedare has already said, this discussion has received narrow participation. It is that, precisely, which is the most bothersome aspect of it because it seeks to arrive at a uniform format to be applied to six pages. An RfC allows for a wider participation that should be there for such changes. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) I agree that behavioral issues, including socking, are best handled at the relevant board unless they are obvious enough for RegentsPark or Bbb23 to evaluate and act on their own. Btw, until a new RFC is formulated/completed IMO the language agreed upon in the 2019 RFC should be the model followed in this and the related pages because, otherwise we'll get into useless fights over which of the various alternative versions discussed since May 22nd should be regarded as status quo in the interim! Abecedare (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC) @Abecedare: As you see fit. Please do give us a rough timeline on when to expect the RfC on a uniform wording to be followed on the capitals’ articles (Leh, Srinagar and the four others), so that I can formulate my proposal. This month is particularly busy for me, but I will take some time out. Thanks. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC) The time-line of the RFC is really up to the editor(s) interested in starting it! Based upon the above discussion I believe that F&f and/or you would be the best persons to lead the charge for an RFC, perhaps at WP:INB. I would highly encourage either/both of you to come up with a concrete proposal for the lede sentence language and the set of articles you would like it to apply to, because when the proposal is a moving target (as in the above discussion) it is almost impossible for uninvolved editors to follow. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC) I think it would be better for someone other than the two of us to moderate the RfC, though I doubt there will be any takers. If not, give me a week, I will come up with something. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Forget it. See below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC) I’m out of time, will not be responding to you. If anyone else has something to say to me, they’re advised to ping me. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Why would it be better for someone other than I? I was the one who created and carried through the 2019 consensus single-handed. It had over a dozen editors and half a dozen admins on board. I was the one who drew the maps. Where do you fit in @UnpetitproleX:? You had not even joined WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Because of the past instances where you have bullied, wikihounded (to cast aspersions here and here) and misgendendered me, I would prefer somebody else to moderate the RfC since I will also be making a proposal. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC) (Striked because this is not the page to address behaviour, even if other editors have tried to use it for that. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)) You have no history in the previous RfC, you have made no proposal, drawn no maps, and received the assent of no editors let alone half a dozen admins. If I hadn't caught you insinuating in Srinagar that certain disputed regions were an integral part of India two weeks ago, we wouldn't be here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC) References It looks like UnpetitproleX had two past accounts, both of which were editing at the same time (problematic, but in the past). @UnpetitproleX:, you should declare both accounts, and any others you may have used in the past, on your (UnpetitproleX) user page to be on the safe side. I agree with Abecedare that the status quo should stay in place on all Kashmir related articles unless a new consensus emerges. RegentsPark (comment) 13:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC) I think Abecedare was referring specifically to the capitals’ pages when they said "this and the related pages." UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Sorry for being (intentionally) vague. What I meant is that: if the language in the lede of a Kashmir-related article is being disputed, just follow the guidance of the 2019 RFC (as best as possible) for now and use a centralized RFC to settle the dispute for the longer term. Abecedare (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC) PS note to Abecedare's comment. The phrasing was formulated for the capitals in the 2019 consensus. It does not become invalid if a lack of vigilance has caused it to be ignored. After all, several seasoned editors (such as Kautilya3 who felt that the divisions, districts, district capitals, ... in general the smaller unwatched pages were the ones that had the POV activity, and therefore the ones that required consensual phrasing) and Uanfala (who suggested part of the phrasing) were not deliberately wasting their time there. I don't see a need for this to be redone. I expended a huge amount of time. I have had good relations with WikiProject Pakistan for 16 years, received both the Indian Barnstar of National Merit (at Wikiconference in Mumbai) and the Pakistan Barnstar of Nation meritĉ. I'm he main author of History of Pakistan, Kashmir, and Himalayas. There is a limit to which editors such as I should be wasting time battling POV-promoting nationalists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC) You mean this Uanfala and this Kautilya3 ("The current WP:CONSENSUS is to mention the dispute only for the top-level pages of territories")? UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Neither editor has responded to your invitation to clarify. Uanfala, in any case, was reverting an edit that had "occupied' in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Sensing that you are not a nationalist (doesn't believe in closed borders and wealth hoarding), curiosity got the better of me. Why are you so interested in South Asia? Fayninja (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC) And @UnpetitproleX: per REgentsPark's post you need to state clearly on your user page that you had two past accounts (by name) which were being used simultaneously, to apologize there to the community, not hand wave it away in the most casual of manners. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC) In other words, two past accounts need to be mentioned on your user page by nae, not not ellipses ("Previously Unpetitprole, lost password.) beyond the limits of natural language, @UnpetitproleX: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC) I don’t see where RegentsPark has asked me to apologise to anyone. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Still need a mention of two accounts by name and a clear explanation, not language that strains the limits of natural language. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Change Kashmirt to Kashmir 2A02:C7B:114:2800:7110:9EB8:3D23:4E5F (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Sfn errors

@UnpetitproleX, may I ask you to double-check references number 40, 43 and 45? They're all to Khan (1981), which is not present in the source list – possibly typoes for Khan (1978) or Rabbani (1981), but I don't have access to those sources to check. Thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Wham2001: it should be Khan (1978), pages 9, 10 and 11 respectively. I must’ve mixed up the year between the two (Khan and Rabbani). I’ve corrected it now. Thank you. :) UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Excellent – thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Dogra rule sanitised

Why is Dogra rule sanatised with no mention of the high feudalism, massacre or anti muslim rule but same is not done with the Afghan rule? A lot of stuff is missing 4lways4ccelerate (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You can add material to the article but please provide reliable sources and read WP:DUE first. RegentsPark (comment) 23:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark and 4lways4ccelerate: Up until 19 May 2023, there was no history in the article before 1980. This had been a part of a longstanding (if tacit) agreement. Then in the period of a few days, a longish history section was added. WP:AGF notwithstanding it would be hard to come way without wondering to oneself if the history was not the aspect of window dressing for the G20 meeting in Srinagar which began on 22 May 2023.

Personally, I don't believe that you—4lways*—should consider the current history to be the part of any consensus. That is my view. But then I do not believe that the history of Dogra rule belongs anywhere but the Kashmir page. The longstanding agreement around this is the reason that Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) (yes, the very princely state of the Dogras) does not have a history section, nor do Jammu and Kashmir (state) and Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) have histories that pre-date the beginning of those administrative entities. I don't believe this page should either unless it is specifically local history. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I might try to address this vulnerability to content-fork-creation in the sub-regional, city-, and town histories in the RfC that I plan to start in the coming weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It is fine, It will take some time but I will add a few things with proper sources myself. 4lways4ccelerate (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)