Talk:Jammu and Kashmir

Can we get a script?

Tavix, is it possible to get a script to convert all the existing links to Jammu and Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir (state)? None of us have the energy to convert several thousand links that exist.

And if we don't do it, the nationalists will change them all to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), irrespective of whether it makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

On an related note: https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Jammu_and_Kashmir_(union_territory). – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not all the links refer specifically to the state—many of them refer to the region in general, which is currently located at Kashmir. I would think some of the links should go there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Tavix, we can be pretty sure thatall references to "Jammu and Kashmir" that should go to "Jammu and Kashmir (Union territory)" have been converted. The remaining ones can safely go to "Jammu and Kashmir (state)". This is the right time to run a script. If we can't run a script, the whole thing is doomed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No evidence for either the union territory or the state being the primary topic has been presented in the course of the requested move. Where no topic is primary, the disambiguation page is placed at the base name. DrKay (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Jammu and Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation) – Currently too many wikilinks to this title, difficult to edit all the articles. Instead this article can be mvoed to Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation), and the current title can be redirected to main article Jammu and Kashmir (Union Territory). Crashed greek (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Are most of the links about the union territory, or about Jammu and Kashmir (state) as suggested in the previous section, or about the region including Ladakh and possibly Azad Jammu and Kashmir? Perhaps the article at the base name should be about the geographical region rather than one of its political subdivisions, as with Punjab, etc. This may be via a primary redirect to Kashmir or a separate short article. See also WT:Disambiguation pages with links#Jammu and Kashmir. Certes (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The primary topic, if one exists, would be an overview of the region. Kashmir functions as that kind of article, and I would be okay with either a primary redirect to Kashmir or a separate overview article specifically for "Jammu and Kashmir" if there's not too much overlap. I'd like for the links to be cleaned up first, but I agree with the sentiment at DPL that we should figure out a different disambiguation for Jammu and Kashmir (state) because it's still ambiguous and much of the links would be for this entity. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural comment: Wikipedia:Requested moves#Request all associated moves explicitly.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Crashed greek. Old pages (not edited since August 5 2019) redirects to disambiguation page, as the article was originally created under Jammu and Kashmir title. The page be moved to avoid redirects to DAB. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Crashed greek (talk · contribs): This needs to be a request to move the main article (whichever it is) to the base name per WP:PRECISION and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 21#Jammu and Kashmir. If there is no primary topic, then the disambiguation page should remain at the base name. I'll stike my !vote if the proposal is so expanded to correct that arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • People could argue that WP:PRECISION requires exactly the titles we've got at present – with disambiguators to make the titles precise enough so they don't cause confusion. At any rate, what we've got now is a temporary arrangement, and in a year or two it might well be that we'd need to rename the articles concerned (but that wouldn't simply be a matter for an RM as it would involve article restructuring). – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That would be an argument that the "union territory" (or whichever disambiguator) is not a disambiguator at all, but a necessary part of the title, and so shouldn't be in parentheses. I would also support a title that was so worded. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be bureaucracy to do that, which wikipedia is not. My this comment is because you voted oppose instead of as a comment. Crashed greek (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because this proposal seems to include moving Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) to the base name (or redirecting the base name to there, which would be irregular). I remain unconvinced that the UT is the primary topic for this term. Certes (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is very confusing. Khestwol (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support move of dab page and retargeting of Jammu and Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir (state) (without moving anything else). This is the rough consensus of the sum of all previous discussions (at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (state)#Disambiguation page, Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory)#Requested move 1 November 2019, Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 68#Kashmir pages, and probably elsewhere). The current dab page is the erratic outcome of this recent RfD. The situation will definitely need to change at some point in the future, but this is partly dependent on real-life events (what becomes of the recently created and controversial union territory) and fully reliant on a restructuring of all related articles (which is going to be a much more involved affair). The status quo – Jammu and Kashmir (state) at a disambiguated title to avoid confusion, with Jammu and Kashmir redirecting to it as the established primary topic – is the lesser of two evils. That article is clearly the primary topic with respect to longer-term significance (but see the RfD for an argument that it isn't the most popular one), and its lede section, as currently written, easily serves as a WP:BCA of sorts as a broadly-pitched introduction and a gateway to the other two articles. See also Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Jammu and Kashmir for why having a disambiguation page at the primary title is – at least for the time being – operationally highly undesirable. – Uanfala (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It could be moved to the base name if it's (currently) the primary topic, and then be moved again at some point in the future, partly dependent on those real-life events. If it still needs "union territory" in the title even though it's the primary topic, that part shouldn't be in parentheses. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • At the risk of OSE, unambiguous UTs have no qualifier, so "Jammu and Kashmir union territory" (capitals negotiable) probably isn't the common name. However, it could be a reasonable natural disambiguation. Certes (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Exactly. And the shorter name could redirect to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) qualifies as the primary topic for the coming future, and all references made to Jammu and Kahsmir would be UT alone, as Ladakh is already separate entity. --Ab207 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • If it's the primary topic, it doesn't need the disambiguating qualifier. If the "union territory" is needed in the title for reasons other than disambiguation, it shouldn't be in parentheses. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • My argument was based on the comment which also argues for redirecting Jammu and Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). Move request for the removal of parenthesis should be done at the talk page of Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). But I agree that this move request is incomplete and does not clarify things as you have said, and a multiple page move request should have been made.--Ab207 (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per JHunterJ and Certes. The Jammu and Kashmir disambiguation page lists 1) Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), a region administered by India as a union territory since 2019, 2) Jammu and Kashmir (state), a state of India from 1954 to 2019 and 3) Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), a princely state from 1846 to 1952. Seven months ago, on 31 October 2019, Jammu and Kashmir was moved without a discussion to Jammu and Kashmir (state). If Jammu and Kashmir (state) is considered to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then that move should be reverted and this page can indeed be moved to Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation). If that move is not reverted, then the Jammu and Kashmir dab page should remain at its present title. It would be counterintuitive for Jammu and Kashmir to redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state), instead of simply moving Jammu and Kashmir (state) to Jammu and Kashmir. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, DAB at basename fits in this case I think.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This was just decided at RfD. Consensus can change, but give it some time. I would also like to reiterate that the best solution here is to convert this page to a broad-concept article that describes the geographic region of Jammu and Kashmir, with natural access to articles on the specific political entities that it has been organized into over time. --BDD (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the existing consensus, as visible in the discussions I've linked to, is definitely not for the dab page, and the fact that the recent RfD resulted in disambiguation is probably less a sign of a change of consensus and more a side effect of the low participation and the obscurity of the venue. Also, a BCA of sorts already exists, and somewhat confusingly it's located at Kashmir. – Uanfala (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

    Perhaps Kashmir is the BCA I'm looking for, though that was disputed at the RfD last November. That and the recent discussion had pretty healthy participation. I can't speak to how widely they may have been advertised to WikiProjects, but they're hardly illegitimate. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The RfD was closed with "no prejudice against an RM to make the state (or any of the other topics) primary by moving it [to the base name]", so there's no need to give it some time. But whichever is to be primary needs to be part of the move request. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Which page should occupy (or have a redirect from) "Jammu and Kashmir"? The proposed move Jammu and Kashmir → Jammu and Kashmir (disambiguation), in isolation, would merely make the dab malplaced. It's a prerequisite for either retargetting the resulting redirect or moving an article over it, but we can only discuss that proposal once we know the new redirect target or which article would be moved. Certes (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this and all other future proposals for moves/redirects or whatever. The RFD is the final word on the subject. Since it has decided that there is no PRIMARYTOPIC for "Jammu and Kashmir", starting yet another move proposal based on an imaginary PRIMARYTOPIC is complete nonsense. We don't want an endless cycle of move proposals once every month. Enough is enough. Let us get on with fixing the links. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfD did not decide that there is no primary topic for "Jammu and Kashmir", and explicitly had "no prejudice against an RM to make the state (or any of the other topics) primary by moving it [to the base name]". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The RFD did in effect decide that there is no PRIMARYTOPIC for the time being, when it removed "Jammu and Kashmir" as a redirect to Jammu and Kashmir (state). This proposal in no way establishes that there is new PRIMARYTOPIC for the base title. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
      • However you want to spin that, my close said it was not the "final word on the subject" by explicitly allowing for "yet another move proposal", so it is not "complete nonsense" nor the beginning of "an endless cycle". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Uanfala. Today or tomorrow you will have to support it anyway, so why not now? Keeping it like this way will only create confusions. Dhawangupta (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support . Readers are confused with Jammu and Kashmir as it was a princely state, later which turned into state and some parts of Jammu and Kashmir divided from it to Pakistan as Azad Kashmir and China as Aksai Chin . If there are separate article of other divided parts in Pakistan and China but a reader who loves history will be confused at Jammu and Kashmir merged article. So disambiguation page is important. So that reader will get knowledge about what is Jammu and Kashmir (state) , Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) . While State and Union Territory is recently differentiated in Aug 2019. And the Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) is too much different from Jammu and Kashmir (state) because the state was divided into two union Territories i.e J&K and Ladakh. Most of laws changed and demography being changed. There is will be finally too much difference between all three Jammu and Kashmir related articles. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}03:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @TheChunky: Just to be clear: Jammu and Kashmir is currently a disambiguation page, and the proposal is to give the Jammu and Kashmir title to our article about the union territory. Certes (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Certes: oh, I misunderstood this. My vote is to separate Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir (union territory). — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri ^{(Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)}10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Certes Ytpks896 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2020 (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.

Link fixing after RM

I have looked at a small sample of incoming links and they are split between J&K(UT), J&K(state), Ladakh and apolitical references to the region. The latter should probably go to Kashmir, perhaps via a redirect such as Jammu and Kashmir area. Pages such as Khas people may need a specialist to tell us whether they live in J&K(UT), Ladakh or both. I've sorted out the remaining templates used in articles, and there are no unwanted incoming redirects. We're now down to 1,701 articles linking to the dab. Despite #Can we get a script? above, I don't believe that much of this process can be automated. We need a strategy, ideally involving someone familiar with the area. Certes (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that ideally we'd want to make at least one further distinction, so that we can differentiate between:

1. links for the region in the broadest sense (which includes the Pakistani areas as well), these can be piped via Jammu and Kashmir area or Jammu and Kashmir (region) (currently redirects to Kashmir, but they can be retargeted to the BCA if one gets created);
2. links intending the Indian-administered parts of this region; before 2019 this was coterminous with the state; now these can be piped via Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir or Indian-administered Kashmir (currently that's a section of Kashmir);
3. links specifically in the context of the administration or politics of the former state of India: these should ideally be piped via something like Jammu and Kashmir (1947-2019 state) (the relevant article is currently at Jammu and Kashmir (state);
4. links specifically in the context of the administration or politics of the union territory as a union territory: these and only these should go to Jammu and Kashmir (union territory);
5. links for whatever is the contemporary administrative unit with the name (contexts like "Such-and-such town is in Jammu and Kashmir"), at the moment that's Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), but as far as I know its status as a union territory is temporary so if we link to its current title then those links will one day need to be changed; I'm not sure of the best redirect to use, Jammu and Kashmir (current administrative unit)?

Given that a large chunk of links have already been done (presumably without attention to all these distinctions), I suspect that ultimately we'll need to re-examine all the links to the several Jammu and Kashmir articles. – Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding that for probably many cases – like language X being spoken in Jammu and Kashmir, it will actually be better to drop mention of "Jammu and Kashmir" altogether and instead specify the exact cultural-geographic region: which will mostly be one of Kashmir Valley, Jammu region and Ladakh. – Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been trying to help fix the links, with the best of my limited knowledge. I will stop for now, and let people more familiar with this work on the links. Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Natg 19: Thanks for the good work. I think continuing to fix links where the correct target is clear is still helpful. I've done a few myself, particularly templates like {{IND NH1 sr}} which fix several articles with one easy edit, but there are plenty that require an expert. Perhaps we can reduce the volume by identifying some groups of articles to bulk-fix with AWB/JWB first. Certes (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen links being fixed by several editors, and I don't think there have been any fundamentally incorrect ones. The issue is more to do with the links being future-proof. – Uanfala (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The term Kashmir

The term Kashmir is highly misunderstood. Many people incorrectly believe Kashmir means Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), Ladakh, Gilgit Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, and Aksai Chin combined. This mistake is also committed by large media houses, potentially based on Wikipedia’s usage. [1] The areas of Jammu and Ladakh have little in common with Kashmir. Each province has its own dominant ethnicity, religion, topography, climate, diverse culture, and distinct major language. Jammu has similarities with neighboring Punjab and Ladakh has similarities with neighboring Tibet and Gilgit Baltistan. To avoid this confusion it is very important to define what Kashmir is what it is not.

This is the accurate map of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir:

Jammu as J, Kashmir as K and Ladakh as L

In this map, we can see correctly marked Jammu as J, Kashmir as K, and Ladakh as L. The more elaborated map can be seen here[2].

Christopher Snedden

Christopher Snedden has multiple times emphasized that whenever he uses the word Kashmir, he meant the Kashmir Valley, not any other region as Kashmir Valley is the actual Kashmir. Apart from that he states that ethnic Kashmiris live in the Valley, and calling someone Kashmiri from Azad Kashmir would be a misnomer and he prefers the word Jammuties for them.

• Snedden, Christopher. Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. Oxford University Press. p. 1-10.
• Snedden, Christopher. Kashmir-The Untold Story. Harper Collins.

I use Kashmir to refer to the Kashmir Valley

• Snedden, Christopher. The Untold Story of the People of Azad Kashmir. Columbia University Press.

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (also known as "Free Kashmir") is the southernmost political entity within the Pakistani-administered part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Other sources

• Naqshi, A. R.; Dar, G. H.; Javeid, G. N.; Kachroo, P. (1988). "Malvaceae of Jammu and Kashmir State, India". 75 (4): 1499–1524. doi:10.2307/2399298. ISSN 0026-6493. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

The state is situated on the northern fringe of India and comprises three distinct geographical regions: Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh.

• Singh, Priyanka. "Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir on the Periphery". Strategic Analysis. 37 (1): 128–135. doi:10.1080/09700161.2013.737594. ISSN 0970-0161.

… He admits that the term 'Azad Kashmir' is a misnomer … Snedden signs off by putting across his proposal for Kashmir's future: 'Let the people decide' (p. 227) … The Kashmiri Pandits have been displaced from the valley due to the Pakistan abetted militancy since the late 1980s …

• Puri, Balraj. "Kashmiriyat: The vitality of Kashmiri identity". Contemporary South Asia. 4 (1): 55–63. doi:10.1080/09584939508719751. ISSN 0958-4935.

… The Azad Kashmir or POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), as the Pak-held part of the state is called in Pakistan and India respectively, is, therefore, a misnomer. The entire Kashmiri-speaking area, ie the valley of Kashmir, is within the Indian part of the state and comprises just …

• Claws research team. "Jammu and Kashmir Realities Revisited" (PDF).

Indian news channels continue to refer to the Kashmir imbroglio as being applicable to the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir. This is a distortion. A further distortion comes from the popular slogan, “Kashmir to Kanyakumari – India is one”, used symbolically as a reflection of Indian Nationhood. This slogan while epitomising the spirit of India is actually a misnomer as Kashmir is not the northern most part of India and neither is Kanyakumari the southernmost tip. Factually, the two ends are ‘Indira Col’ and ‘Indira Point’. In the physical plane, Kashmir comprises 6.98 per cent of the total land mass of undivided Jammu and Kashmir and about 15 per cent of the land mass of Jammu and Kashmir as presently with India. Kashmir is thus geographically, a very small portion of the larger state of Jammu and Kashmir, the other two major constituents being the Ladakh and Jammu Divisions. It is thus surprising how a problem in less than 7 per cent of the land mass of the state of Jammu and Kashmir, is perceived as a problem engulfing the whole state and has gone on to become such a major international issue........ Kashmir refers to the place where Kashmiris live and where the Kashmiri language is natively spoken. Jammu and Ladakh Divisions have little in common with Kashmir. Each province has its own dominant ethnicity, religion, topography, climate, diverse culture and distinct major language. No other state in India has such intra-state diversity.

• Excelsior, Daily. "Kashmir A Misnomer - in the Light of Amritsar Treaty".

All this confusion was the result of the word Kashmir – a valley, Kashmir division or the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The valley at that time was under Sikh Darbar. The treaty merely transferred the vale from the Sikh rule to the new state under Gulab Singh. Sikh Darbar was an independent entity where as a new state was under the suzerainty of British Raj. It was just transferred from Sikh Governor to Gulab Singh. Gulab Singh paid rupees 75 lacs for the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir of which vale of Kashmir was a very small part. Gulab Singh got – the whole of the outer hills between the Ravi and the Indus, the Valley of Kashmir, Ladakh, Gilgit, Baltistan and Indus Valley down to Chilas

• Times, State. "Calling J&K a region would be a misnomer".

Similarly, the aspirations of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh are not the same. Jammu and Ladakh regions, it is not a secret, stand for total merger with India and also for the abrogation of Article 370. Ladakh also wants the status of Union Territory and Jammu too has been struggling for separation from Kashmir in its own way. Ladakh has no problem with Jammu province. In fact, its leadership has on several occasions demanded separation of their region from Kashmir and demanded its merger either with Jammu or with Himachal Pradesh. Jammu and Ladakh would have become independent of Kashmir long back, had the Indian political class been not Kashmir-centric and essentially anti-Jammu and anti-Ladakh. It is the Indian political class that has thrown in their socio-economic and political life with Kashmir. As for the Kashmiri Muslim leadership, it is vertically divided into four groups demanding azadi, merger with Pakistan, self-rule and greater autonomy. Very significantly, internally-displaced Kashmiri Hindus, who are the original inhabitants of Kashmir, have been demanding creation of separate homeland for them within the Valley and also seeking Union Territory status for the area they want the Union Government to convert into Homeland (Panun Kashmir).

• Ahmed, Ishtiaq. State, Nation and Ethnicity in Contemporary South Asia. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-85567-578-0.

It is important to note that the majority of Azad Kashmiris are not Kashmiri-speaking. Many speak some dialect of Punjabi.

Proposal

My proposal is as follows:

• Merge Kashmir Valley with Kashmir and remove anything related to Jammu, Ladakh, GB, AJK, and Aksai Chin from the article of Kashmir.
• Omit any kind of statement which says Jammu, Ladakh, GB, AJK, and Aksai Chin are part of Kashmir rather the article should say these regions are part of Undivided Jammu and Kashmir region or simply Jammu and Kashmir (princely state).
• The new name for the region could be Undivided Jammu and Kashmir region or Jammu and Kashmir (princely state). LearnIndology (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I am not sure what the problem is that is being addressed. If media houses "misunderstand" Kashmir, that is not our problem. As far as we are concerned, "Kashmir" is predemoninantly used to refer to the Kashmir region, which coincides with the former princely state. In addition, we also recognise that it is used for Kashmir Valley. If Christopher Snedden couldn't figure out how to lean the terms (other than his "personal preference"), I am not sure we can do so either.

But frankly, I don't see a "problem" having been identified. Confusions exist in the language. That is not a problem for Wikipedia. It is a problem only if we misrepresent it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the term Kashmir on Wikipedia is being used to address the whole region of Jammu and Kashmir (including Pak ones), which on the ground is incorrect. The term that should be used for the region is either Undivided Jammu and Kashmir or simply Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) and Christopher Snedden are correct in what they are saying. If you want, I can further explain how the article of Kashmir is blatantly incorrect from head to toe and how things have gotten mixed up due to this and created confusion in media as well (which I believe is mainly because of WP). LearnIndology (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written based on WP:RS. What is "correct" depends on what the RS say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have provided the reliable sources above discussing the same problem. LearnIndology (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Those sources do not prove that the problematic terminology does not exist. Rather they prove that it exists. You are expecting Wikipedia to turn a blind eye to it and start using your or their preferred terminology. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Wikipedia only exists to explain the ways of the world, not to alter them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the whole point, the terminology is problematic, that is the reason I started this discussion and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) is not my personal terminology, it has an article of its own. We have enough reliable sources addressing this name problem. On the basis of these sources, we can differentiate between Kashmir and the rest of the state. LearnIndology (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No, your "point" does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The only way you can change the page on Kashmir is by demonstrating that the term is not used in the sense that is described. That, you cannot do. So I suggest you stop. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

To prove that point, I have provided the reliable sources above and those refs prove that Kashmir isn't the name of the region and nor it should be used for the whole region. LearnIndology (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Kautilya3. I think the difference is between what is and what ought to be, and Wikipedia focuses on what is. This means that it is more important whether a term is used in common parlance, than whether it is a misnomer. The first book of Snedden's that you've quoted explains, in fact, why the word Kashmir is commonly used as a metonym for the entire region:

Snedden, Christopher,. Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. London. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-84904-622-0. OCLC 1100841201.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It is important to understand why the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was popularly known as ‘Kashmir’ during its existence, why the dispute over the international status of J&K is called ‘the Kashmir dispute’, and why the ruler of J&K also was known as ‘Kashmir’, even though he came from the region of Jammu, a separate and distinctly different region to Kashmir’s immediate south. (Similarly, the maharaja’s subjects were generally called ‘Kashmiris’, even though most were not ethnically so.) The reason for these uses of the term ‘Kashmir’ is easy to explain. It was because the geographic region of Kashmir was the most acclaimed, popular and visited part of the princely state of J&K during its official existence from 1846 until 1952.

Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Snedden are also discussing the same problem, one should note that they used the term princely state of Jammu and Kashmir rather than Kashmir to address the region.

It is important to understand why the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was popularly known as ‘Kashmir’ during its existence.

LearnIndology (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The so-called Treaty of Chushul, signed 17 September 1842, reads:

Śrī Khalsaji Apsarani Śrī Mahārājah; Lhasa representative Cabinet Minister Zurkhang; investigator Dapön Pelzhi, commander of forces; Balana, the representative of Gulam Kahandin; and the interpreter Amir Shah, have written this letter after sitting together. We have agreed that we have no ill-feelings because of the past war. The two kings will henceforth remain friends forever. The relationship between Mahārājah Gulab Singh of Kashmir and the Lama Guru of Tibet (Dalai Lama) is now established.

I wonder why Gulab Singh was calling himself the Maharaja of "Kashmir", four years before the Treaty of Amritsar? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jammu and Kashmir (union territory) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)