Talk:Accession Day (Jammu and Kashmir)

Some issues

• If a political party, at some time, did call for celebrating the Accession Day like Diwali, it doesn't mean that " In some areas, the festivities are as big as those of Diwali.". It is certainly undue as well.
• Kashmiri separatists, call for the observance of a "Black Day" following "Accession Day" in order to express their disapproval of the Indian Army entering into Kashmir . There are many issues connected with it. Whether Hari Singh did actually sign it, was he authorised to sign, did he do it under pressure, what happened to the plebiscite offer, etc. We are not discussing all these issues here; its best to say that "Kashmiri separatists, call for the observance of a "Black Day" following "Accession Day" in order to express their disapproval of the Indian Army entering into Kashmir". No need to mention that "as requested by Sheikh Abdullah to drive out Pathan tribesmen who had invaded the region.". That is undue commentary. Including that will drag things to the point of discussing the entire Kashmir conflict here. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing undue here. plebiscite did not occur as Pakistani invaders have still not vacated parts of Kashmir which they illegally occupy - thiswas the required first step before plebiscite per UN resolution. Hari singh was duly authorised to sign accession as he was the king. it would help if you provide references which say otherwise. it is well established that sheikh abdullah was pro india at the time. if you persist with POV pushing you will be blocked.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

We are not discussing who is pro/anti India. India / Pakistan does not matter here. When we say how Kashmiri people, or Kashmiri separatists, view 27 October , we try to say, how they view it. Don't try to bring in your views or the legitimacy of the issue. We can discuss it in Kashmir conflict. Kashmiri separatists view it as an invasion, thay say "Indian forces entered into Kashmir on October 27 in 1947 to enchain Kashmiris in shackles "[1], that India has not honoured the commitment to conduct the plebiscite, etc. India and Pakistan have their on views about these; but here we are describing what Kashmir separatists are saying. See Nakba Day where the Palestinian view is given in the lead; not the legitimacy of the creation of the state of Israel or the UN resolutions. When we are having a dispute over content, discuss it; threats will only expose the weakness of your arguments. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Kashmiri people does not include only the persons from the valley of Kashmir. It also includes the populace of Jammu & Ladakh. The article Nakba Day, which you have referred to, is only a Start class article and by no means sets any standard for similar type of articles. By the way, there is another article Yom Ha'atzmaut for the same event, written from an Israeli perspective.

Regarding your statement, "If a political party, at some time, did call for celebrating the Accession Day like Diwali, it doesn't mean that " In some areas, the festivities are as big as those of Diwali.". It is certainly undue as well."; I agree that it does not mean "In some areas...". But, at the same time, I would like to point out that it was not one political party, but a group and mentioning this does not fall under WP:Undue. Shovon (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you discussing content disputes instead of issuing threats. Whether it is Nakba Day or Yom Ha'atzmaut the point is same. When we discuss Nakba Day, we say what the Palestinians are saying and when we discuss Nakba Day, we describe what the Israeli view is. We should mention Accession Day and also Black Day; but there is no need to bring in "as requested by Sheikh Abdullah ... region", etc along with Black Day.(Just as there is no need to bring in the question of disputes about the legality of accession while describing what is Accession Day). Regarding the second point, I have no objection to include a sentence to the effect that "BJP ... said they would celebrate the anniversary of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India... in the same way as the festival of lights."14.139.128.14 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the IP. please do not revert without building consensus. the context is very important and that is why Sheikh abdullahs mention is extremely necessary--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

and also I would like to point out that this article is about "accession day" not any "black day". you are welcome to start an article on that if you feel that is notable enough to merit one.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You "completely disagree "? You feel "the context is very important"? Give some reasons. We might start an article on black day when this one expands; till then only a mention here is required and anything that we mention will be according to NPOV, SYN, etc. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

my comments are self explanatory. you have been reported. stop POV pushing now.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Accession Day (Jammu and Kashmir). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20101028221720/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/Oct/28/accession-day-is-our-national-day-jmu-bar-33.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2010/Oct/28/accession-day-is-our-national-day-jmu-bar-33.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029163930/http://www.groundreport.com/World/J-K-Accession-day-celebrations-in-J-K_7/2930440 to http://www.groundreport.com/World/J-K-Accession-day-celebrations-in-J-K_7/2930440
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Accession-Day-to-be-celebrated-as-Diwali-BJP/Article1-617711.aspx

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) 21:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)