Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir

Pakistan occupied Kashmir

Pakistan occupied Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

An extremely incendiary and POV title that was converted from a redirect to a content fork and immediately caused an entrenched war among involved editors meco (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

i can count alone around 11 editors have been informed about this page through canvassing and they have received propaganda messages from our noble editor kashmir cloud ordering deletion of his original message to cover his tracks is he cast788 or ip 177 ???*** 86.158.235.148 (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of kashmircloud (talk · contribs) having urged editors to delete his canvassing messages? __meco (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL look at his contributions then reply it clearly states in bold red writing "URGENT" and at the bottom says "delete before voting" how much more proof do you want? Also look at cast788 aka kashmir cloud sock and his contributions too its all very obvious 86.158.235.148 (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)86.158.235.148 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this. Could you show some of the edits where this is written? __meco (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at User:Cast788 and his contribs, Kashmircloud didn't post the messages using his main account. Pahari Sahib 16:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Cast788 (talk · contribs) contacted five users with the canvassing request, none of whom have so far turned up here. __meco (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! such a comlexed network for canvassing. The style it's written looks really attractive.  S3000  ☎ 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

POV messaging to gather votes by kashmir cloud

Urgent To-do item, NOW for all Indian Wikipedians

[edit] Save Pakistan occupied Kashmir article from Permanent Deletion, please read below. HELLO Xxxsacheinxxx Please save Pakistan occupied Kashmir article from deletion. The article has been hijacked by Wikipedians of Pakistani origin who are demanding its deletion. Remember, once deleted its gonna be extremely hard to recreate it. This is not a wasted attempt because all claims in the article are well sourced. Please consider the following:

1. Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir is the term used by the Indian government, and for legal reasons followed by the media and Indian publishers

2. The term is POV on Wikipedia, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away.

3. Redirecting PoK to Azad Kashmir is not the solution. Geographically, Azad Kashmir is a small region of the area labelled as PoK. Therefore, territorially speaking, it is inherently false.

4. Additionally, the term Azad, which means free, is also a POV. Free in what sense? From Indian administration?

5. As a responsible encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to mention what the term means, the area under it, who has dubbed the name, usage of the name, the reasons why it is called, and legal usage in India, Pakistan, and major countries/groups. The page should not be more than two-three paragraphs long, and must point to the articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, the Kashmir dispute, Azad Kashmir, and FANA.

Wikipedians of Pakistani origin want this removed and replaced with just the Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas article because it speaks the truth. Anybody with an account can vote. If none please create one right away and vote for keep.

PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE BEFORE VOTING. a similar warning is on wp:india page

Please oppose the page to be deleted. It is requested by Pro Pakistani Wikipedians who want all trace of it to be vanished. Do so immediately!. Key in keep followed by reason.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xxxsacheinxxx" Can you see it now meco? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) this message is courtesy of our noble kashmir cloud or is it User:J-3b56 or cast788 the reason kashmir cloud made double accounts was to force his propaganda from the POK article onto other users to stack up votes also he is blocked so it was a desperate attempt by a desperately biased editor to force his veiws across sadly it has worked to some extent as many users he messaged are indian (im not anti indian) and they will obviously agree with him to some extent as you can see i didnt run around like a mad dog persuading pakistani editors to vote and then sneakily delete the message good day 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You spoke to soon :-) Pahari Sahib 16:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not sure where it may have forked from but article is definitely POV and most of it seems to be covered anyway at Kashmir, Pakistan, and other articles already. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, PoK is a POV term used in Indian government statements and newsmedia. The term (and the Indian territorial claims) should be mentioned in the leads of the Azad Kashmir and FANA articles, but we don't need a separate PoK article for that. Likewise, the Pakistani claims should be mentioned in the lead of the Jammu and Kashmir article. --Soman (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete POK is a term used exclusively by India and indians it is not a widely used term its usually just called pakistani administered kashmir. 86.158.236.25 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, anonymous 'votes' are not valid in XfDs. --Soman (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find you are incorrect on that and that any contributor to the project is allowed an opinion although, an effort to have the discussion more inline with policies and guidelines may be appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry didnt no i wasnt allowed to vote 86.158.236.25 (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You are, but it's not a vote. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 6 September 2008 (GMT).

• Delete POVfork with a POVed title Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Blatant POV - inflammatory title and article contents, an article called British occupied Ireland or Russian occupied Finland would have no place on wiki and neither should this. Pahari Sahib 04:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Your reasoning is non sequiter. Russian-occupied Finland is not a term used by a contemporary political body. Similarly, British-occupied Ireland is not a term used by a government, only by bloggers. That would constitute WP:OR. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Are you it is okay to create a POV fork ostensibly on the basis that it is used officially by the Indian government. Rather than just noting this in the relevant article, why should there be an article on one nation's POV? Pahari Sahib 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Again your logic is false. I've mentioned that the article be redirected to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Is that a POV? Indian-administered Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir are the same topic as far as area is concerned. Is there a single article on Wikipedia that covers "Pakistan-administered Kashmir"? If so, we can redirect it the same way it is done to J&K. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

  Note see here and here Pahari Sahib 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as azad k as pok also includes trans karakoram tract...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like "trans-Karakoram tract" or "Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETEKashmircloud (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. Clearly Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a term of note, and if sufficiently different in meaning from other temrs needs at least an explanation of its meaning and use. If considered synonymous to another term it should be redirected and the usage explained in that article. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25 6 September 2008 (GMT).
• Delete: Blatant POV fork of Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep it but must rewrite it is because the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is not only comprise Azad Kashmir and FANA areas. There is also some more areas, like the one that was passed to People Republic of China in 1960s era for use against India. If remove, then got no article to centralize all of Pakistans Kashmir regions. Differ from Indian Occupied Kashmir that is only Jammu and Kashmir province so all centralized already. But when read, it is clearly written by some Indian fellow 100 sure%. Hence we must still keep this article, but rewrite and make it neutral. No question of delete. --Blackeaglz (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the article it is the Indian viewpoint just like Pakistan has got Azad Kashmir viewpoint. This article must remain to keep neutrality.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep with caveats:
  1. Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir is the term used by the Indian government, and for legal reasons followed by the media and Indian publishers
  2. The term is POV on Wikipedia, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away.
  3. Redirecting PoK to Azad Kashmir is not the solution. Geographically, Azad Kashmir is a small region of the area labelled as PoK. Therefore, territorially speaking, it is inherently false.
  4. Additionally, the term Azad, which means free, is also a POV. Free in what sense? From Indian administration?
  5. As a responsible encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to mention what the term means, the area under it, who has dubbed the name, usage of the name, the reasons why it is called, and legal usage in India, Pakistan, and major countries/groups. The page should not be more than two-three paragraphs long, and must point to the articles on Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmir, the Kashmir dispute, Azad Kashmir, and FANA.
  6. I support the page be redirected to "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" that consists of the above suggested text.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 11:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as it is an official term used by the Indian Government, similar to "Indian Occupied Kashmir" (which redirects to Jammu and Kashmir) used by Pakistan government. It is as neutral as Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas (Jammu and Kashmir), both territories are claimed by India and refered to as POK or PAK (Pakistan-Administered Kashmir). I don't disapprove of the article being redirected to PAK, which links to Azad Kashmir, and Northen Areas and gives the legal standings of India and Kashmir, also a para about the dispute and control of the region.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per Nichalp and Redtigerxyz. Mspraveen (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment, Would you support an article called "Indian-occupied Kashmir" with or without caveats? The Kashmir conflict article is the best place to expand on the dispute. This shouldn't be a one way street where it is okay to have an Indian POV fork (thus creating an imbalance against Pakistan), that happens to link other articles. This is not being neutral Pahari Sahib 13:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Your question: "Would you support an article called "Indian-occupied Kashmir" with or without caveats?" is Ignoratio elenchi. The POV fork is necessary as "PoK" territories in question do not come under a single umbrella. Had Azad Kashmir referred to the same area as PoK, then the discussion would be on equal footing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the reply by Ganeshk before posting your reply to me? The territories to which you refer to are convered under the Pakistan-administered Kashmir article so perhaps his discussion is on an "equal footing" after all. You have also stated that "The term is POV on Wikipedia, but it is real, because it exists, and cannot be *deleted* away." This seems be an implicit recognition of the fact that is indeed POV and that if conflicts with Wikipedia's NPOV policy - NPOV should be sacrosanct. I hope you will review your objections. Pahari Sahib

No, I did not see the reply. Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was a redirect to Azad Kashmir not too long back. I was not aware that this article did exist. My objection is to the article from being *deleted". Do note that my caveats mention at it be redirected to the PaK. So I guess we are now on a similar footing, with only a disagreement on deletions? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, I think it should be deleted and then be a protected redirect to prevent recreation. Pahari Sahib 15:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Kashmircloud editing to get more votes from Indian editors

if you look at his edit history([1]) he has been lobbying indian editors into voting for the article to be saved obviously the indian editors will see it as neutral i urge neutral editors to lobby for User:Kashmircloud to be blocked from editing. 86.158.235.148 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Another thing is that he is using the same old sentences and copying and pasting the same comments on user talk pages to push his biased veiw through is this allowed? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes canvassing and vote-stacking shouldn't be allowed. Pahari Sahib 13:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why is kashmircloud allowed to do it and not me ? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

When did you do this and who warned you? Pahari Sahib 13:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it was canvassing. But what happened to the usual courtesy the nominating editor should have immediately after nominating the article for deletion. Please bear in mind that the article falls under WikiProject India. It should ideally have been posted on WP:India's talk page. In that case, I would discount the canvassing actions of the concerned. Mspraveen (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean in "that case", there were multiple posting, including this one on your own talk page. Why does an article supposedly about Pakistani territory fall under WP:India Pahari Sahib 13:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The noticeboard is for India-related topics. "Pakistani territory" or not, it does need to be listed as an India-related topic. You cannot argue against the logic of it not being "India-related." =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to say, why does it fall under WP India and not Pakistan. It was posted at WP India but not WP Pakistan, this does not alter the fact that was posted multiple times. Pahari Sahib 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Being the nominating editor I'd like to ask you if you seriously consider not notifying WikiProject India about the nomination to be omissive? __meco (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

As Kashmircloud (talk · contribs) has only been an editor for a little over two weeks, we should assume good faith in that this user probably wasn't aware that canvassing is not acceptable in the form that the user's contributions log reveals. Assuming that this does not continue and is not repeated on future occasions there should be no need to do anything about Kashmircloud over this. I'm sure that at least some of the recipients of the polemic canvassing message will react negatively to its lack of neutrality, if not pandering. __meco (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If this group of indian editors agree with canvassing then i must take direct action against this and remove POK page if it is kept 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

??? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect: Per Nichalp, POK is a real-term used by the Indian government and the Indian media. I would suggest redirecting it to Pakistan-administered Kashmir similar to how India occupied Kasmir redirects to Jammu and Kashmir. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL another indian editor this is POV it hits you in the face kashmircloud is allowed to do anything 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment, Ganeshk is trying to compromise here. Perhaps after AFD a protected redirect? Pahari Sahib 13:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes Pahari Sahib...a protected redirect after the AFD is what I am suggesting. Pakistan-administered Kashmir will need to be updated with this usage. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion civil. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i aint got nothing against indians its just that this rogue kashmir cloud editor does anything he wants like producing POV articles like POK 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, there is an ongoing discussion at WP:CCN, I suggest questions like the Azad Kashmir article, deleting the redirect Indian Occupied Kashmir, etc. be brought up there. Even though Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a less POV name than POK, I do not see the point of having such an article. AJK and FANA are two separate political units, and each have their own articles. The term POK and its usage can be well dealt with in Kashmir conflict, AJK and FANA articles. --Soman (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin See Special:Contributions/Cast788 for canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note, there is also J-3b56 (talk · contribs). --Soman (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better and better how big is this network of canvassing ? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have discovered that indian editors are sending messages i.e cast788 and kashmir cloud and asking them to delete the original message regarding there POV article POK before voting can someone please open there eyes to this blatant canvassing please 86.158.235.148 (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

They have been warned, and are probably socks. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Ganeshk (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the POK page should be deleted and agree with ganeshk on redirecting it to the pakistan administered kashmir page 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*Keep: Agreed with Nichalp. If this gets deleted then Azad should be removed from Kashmir too for Azad Kashmir. snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowolfol4 (talk • contribs)

• • Note, Snowolfol4 (talk · contribs) has no other edits than this AfD commentary. --Soman (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note again, it seems that Snowolfol4 (talk · contribs) is trying to pose as the establised user Snowolfd4 (talk · contribs). Too bad that SineBot cannot be fooled so easily. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Above user blocked for impersonation and probable sockpuppetry. Please disregard his comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The POV title as Nichalp and co. have summarised, cannot be a reason for deletion since there are plenty of articles with names that may offend someone and hence biased (Azad Kashmir is no differen from this one). Notability is ultimately determined by its usage in sources, and whether or not the Indian media etc. are POV, the usage of the term is common. Gizza^{Discuss ©} 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Common term where exactly let me guess india the POK term is a offspring of India and will stay in India no media outlets besides indian offcourse use this term utimately if in the event this POK article is kept then a seperate page for Indian occupied kashmir must be produced to counter it 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are getting wikipedia policies. Delete would mean that the title would not exist. Redirecting would mean that anyone typing Pok would be redirected to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. As spoken above, POK constitutes two regions of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, while Indian-administered Kashmir is the same as Jammu and Kashmir. Since the topic on "Indian-occupied Kashmir" is present in the lead, is it necessary to have a pure cloned fork? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What im trying to explain is that a seperate POK article hence the one which you want to keep is totally biased and should not be used at all let alone be used as a redirect destination. Now what im tyring to explain is that that Pakistan occupied kashmir should just be a simple redirect as it is in Jammu and kashmir page not a seperate page which again is totally POV do you understand what i said if not ill talk to you on your talk page 86.158.235.148 (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We are calling for the article to be redirected to a more neutral title rather than it be deleted and throwing up a "page not found" on wikipedia. The discussion is here is if we have to "delete the article". If no, what are the alternate options. Let's limit the discussion to this page for the sake of all editors. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Note I have added the article to WikiProject Pakistan and to WikiProject International relations and I have notified those two projects on their project talk pages (re criticism above from user:Mspraveen) __meco (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note, the anonymous IP number posting various messages is the banned Nangparbat (talk · contribs). I suggest he/she be ignored along the lines of don't feed the trolls. --Soman (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Seems to be another commonly acceptable name for that region. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: merge or redirect with Pakistan-administered Kashmir. A google search for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" gives 40,000 results and a search for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" gives 54,600 results. A special search in nytimes.com for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" (using site:nytimes.com at the end of search string in google search) generates 9 results and for "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" generates 129 results. But, these two titles refer to same geographical area, so a merge/redirect seems to be a good solution. --GDibyendu (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Clear redirect Why do we need two articles on the same thing? Any content should be in the Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Also why the big fuss over it and the canvassing? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Ultimately the instrument of accession was signed to India, and legally it belongs to India, whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant.Pectore^talk 17:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now thats a typical POV sentence and its not even valid for keeping the article whos to say it belongs to india seen the recent protests against indian rule in the news ??? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite - I have to say I came here with the intention of voting for a delete, but after reading Nichalp's argument, I can't disagree with him. Azad Kashmir literally means "Free Kashmir". Isn't that a propoganda term coined and used by Pakistan too? Note that Azad Kashmir is only one part of Kashmir. There's a need for an article on all of Pakistani Kashmir (which was acquired from the 1947 war) including Northern Areas and areas that it ceded to China in 1965 (that was previously under Pakistani control). However the undeniably strong anti-Pakistani slur in the article has to be neutralised.  S3000  ☎ 19:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Keep no redirect no merge: Pakistan administered Kashmir is a term used by international community. POK is term used by India officially!!! and also in Indian media. The region is same but the views are different. It is about the mind-set of the people how it is looked at. The articles can differ in the way they are treated by different groups. It is same like Nazi Germany is different from Germany.--gppande «talk» 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - possibloy re-write afterwords, but this is ridiculous. It's so PoV it's untrue! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Untrue??? Do a google and see for yourself. --gppande «talk» 21:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)