The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I will protect this, for obvious reasons, and the previous article will remain in the edit history. Whether or not choosing to use Nichalp's alternate version for Pakistan-administered Kashmir is an editorial decision. Neıl ☄ 11:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to close this AFD. Please see The talk page =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE! I propose that I, as an outsider, perform a non-admin closure of this AfD as I have NO conflict of interest having never participated in it (I just do NACs). After that an admin can come and clean up the bits later. At least this way, a neutral party decides that there is no consensus, and thus a keep by default. The debate is not reaching a consensus and looks like it won't. Discussion of this topic should be dealt with by a breakout group of some kind and try to reach a compromise consensus there. Yes/No? _∞Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Wow, you people make it sound like it's against the rules! I know he/she's been blocked, but that doesn't make it a bad thing that he/she is trying to get others involved, considering all the votes as of the beginning were opposing the article. Frankly, I am glad I was contacted - the reasons listed may be somewhat true, but can be fixed by the lot of you without a speedy delete. The name is there for a reason: it is widely recognised internationally. Your input is greatly welcomed ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 23:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying is fine, but not canvassing (i.e. requesting a certain kind of vote, e.g. "vote for keep")  S3000  ☎ 10:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, regardless of a notification/canvas, I would have voted against a delete, so his comment didn't really add to anything ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Comment, anonymous 'votes' are not valid in XfDs. --Soman (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Keep only as redirect with caveats: Delete present history. Recreate with protected redirect that points to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Expand PaK on lines of User:Nichalp/Kashmir Update: =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]
• Note to closing admin See Special:Contributions/Cast788 for canvassing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, there is also J-3b56 (talk · contribs). --Soman (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

*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) [reply]

• • Note, Snowolfol4 (talk · contribs) has no other edits than this AfD commentary. --Soman (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Above user blocked for impersonation and probable sockpuppetry. Please disregard his comment. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

S3000 unless you havent read properly the article named pakistan administered kashmi already exsists which includes all the 3 territories in pakistani kashmir whats the point of this propaganda article called POK unless you can give me a answer to this then POK article is just garbage anymore excuses beside the unification one because this is all covered in the pakistan administered kashmir article maybe we could produce a seperate indian occupied kashmir page ??? 86.158.235.148 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.158.235.148, unless you have not remarked, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is used by prominent political figures of the 2nd greatest nation on earth and in its official documents. Which official documents (besides blogs) do you have for Pakistan administered K., where on earth did you come across this? Bogorm (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC) I dont care of you think its the second greatest nation on earth lol india has no authority over earth let alone kashmir lol so your message is just illogical 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mort de rire! India - 1 000 000 000 people, PRC 1 500 000 000 people, thence second largest! Bogorm (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

Please refer to the sources in the article is you feel it's untrue.  S3000  ☎ 10:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the citations in article are poor but they can be improved. The article in itself hold's merit for keep. PS: I'm strong supporter of RS. --gppande «talk» 10:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a figure of speech people. I don't believe Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry was calling people liars or anything. Please assume some good faith, thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although it is POV, I'm sure the many of you who have a strong need to see this article removed can contribute to make it a lot less POV. The title, though, should stay the same, considering it is an Indian term for an Indian place (not the region of it owned by Pakistan, but the region owned by India). Although Cast788 has been blocked, I do think he/she was doing his/her duty by telling me about it - hey, I love a debate :) (note the smiley face). If you think something is POV, fix it, not so it fits your bias, but so that it fixes the neutrality problem. 'Nuff said. BlackPearl14 ^talkies! 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as you can see a pattern its only indians who want to keep this heavily pro indian article 86.158.235.148 (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I can see, you're being a little racist. It has nothing to do with being Indian. I personally respect what you are saying. I just think that maybe you can help tone down the article to make it neutral - that wouldn't be so hard, now, would it? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]}

One more thing: wasn't it that there is an article in a Pakistan POV on the same issue? Hmm...what was it... aha! Azad Kashmir! If this is to be deleted for POV issues, then shouldn't THAT be deleted for POV issues? BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BlackPearl14's conclusions and refute incontrovertibly 86.158.235.148's rude and fallacious allegations about only Indians willing to preserve the article - I come from the European Union, but that does not hinder me from being aware of the ordeal of the Kashmiri people under Pakistani occupation - read below Shri Rajnath Singh, Shri Lal Krishna Advani and Arun Jaitley's elcidations of the topic - they are breathtaking and touching! Please abstain from nationality-based accusations further ! Bogorm (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant and embarrassingly pov. Failing that redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir Dance With The Devil (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete Do not delete this article as it very ably puts forward the Indian and International view on this problem. Rather a question mark on the neutrality of the "Azad Kashmir" article should be put as it presents very distorted and disturbing facts alongwith a propagandist title. POK is an unnaturally annexed part of India's Kashmir and remains so.--Rachitbhatia1993 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Do Not Delete Do not delete this article as it very ably puts forward the Indian and International view on this problem. When you are keeping pakistani view Azad kashmir in the same way it should also be kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondybaba (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Account blocked as sockpuppet Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Please Do Not Delete this article as it is expressing International & Indian view on this problem. When pakistani view Azad kashmir is allowed here why not this ,else remove Azad kashmir also and keep the international view—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pondybaba (talk • contribs) 07:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulmisir (talk • contribs) Account blocked as sockpuppeteer Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Do Not Delete this article as it is logical to be called like that in the same way they refered Indian kashmir as Indian Administered Kashmir is the same way it should be refered as Pak Occupied KAshmir or Pakistani Administered Kashmir.Azad Kashmir is just refered by Pakistan not by world it should also be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianbhoot (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Account blocked as sockpuppet Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an sockpuppet case is opened regarding these three accounts, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pondybaba. --Soman (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All three blocked. Please disregard. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly keep - the notion is represented in official Indian documents such as this (permits Hurriyat leaders to travel up to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir but Pakistan escorts them up to Islamabad, Shri Rajnath Singh), here(They were convinced that capture of Muzzafarabad, now the capital of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, was imminent.; an entity called the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) came into being, Shri Lal Krishna Advani) and here(official document quoted: "The unanimous resolution of India’s Parliament in 1994 records that Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is an integral part of India.", quoted by the venerable Arun Jaitley). All documents are highly informative for persons from countries not involved in the controversy as me about the legal status of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and moreover they corroborate a previous proposal I come across here to immediately move Azad Kashmir to POK, which I support. I am propense to heave the question of renaming Azad Kashmir to POK in concordance with the crucial documents quoted above and with the 1994 decision of Lok Sabha. At any rate this article is neutral, comprises numerous sources (18) and its deletion together with them would be a misdeed, marked by a complete privation of impartiality Bogorm (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this template above: I declare thereby that I am from a neutral location and have not been sollicited to vote by anyone Bogorm (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Read this: India bans CD-Rom for crossing the line =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the news, however, Britain has committed innumerable atrocities during the Indian determination for independence, proceed circumspectly with their medias. Well, I am delighted to converse with an Indian. Do you find R. Singh's and Advani's quotations convincing and corroborating enough? Besides, I fully agree with the decision of the Indian goverment. Was it taken during Vajpayee's or M. Singh's tme in office? Bogorm (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I came across some online sources of Pakistani origin that refer to the area in question as PoK. See this, this and this for example.  S3000  ☎ 10:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you cared to read the article its a abstract from srinagar aka indian administered kashmir so this is not a pakistani sources its just using a qoute from indian sources understand ??? nice try though 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC) The last article you mention is written by sushant a INDIAN lol 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also the second article is again qouting from indian statements from politicians as i said nice try :) 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(To S3000) Magnificent. Now the usage of the term by both sides is ineffably clear-cut and this corroborates the right of this article to exist. Bogorm (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is this a joke 86.153.130.47 (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are published by reputable, Pakistani sources however. By publishing it means they accept the report / article. If you claim the "Srinagar" article was taken from an Indian source, why isn't the actual source stated? as how they did here (<--and that's why I never included that). The other is published in the "Pakistan Institute of Peace Studies" website!  S3000  ☎ 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they publish qoutes doesnt mean they accept it THATS JUST A MAD CLAIM come on s3000 think properly freind your sounding very desperate at the moment with your claims 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/6917-british-mp-condemns-violence-in-indian-occupied-kashmir.html This is what pakistan thinks of indian administered kashmir lol 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you proove that the sources you provide are pathetic the source you have just provided redirects to kerelanext and its a blog lol please try again. Moving on its logic to include indian claims in pakistani newspapers the institute of peace studies is clearly qouting so please get that into your head even the indians do this if you ever bother to read the news so this claim of yours is again hopeless pakistani newspapers would never call azad kashmir POK they only qoute if you no anything of journalism qouting is used often lol srinagar is a place in india and they have many news outlets the fact that they state srinagar means some high official from there stated it because its the capital of JAMMU AND KASHMIR undertsand thats why they only use srinagar its simple really please come back with some solid evidence rather then redirects to indian sites and some lame blogs which redirect to indian sites such as kerela next and as you are misleading editors and readers 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand my point. I was saying that this article attributes its source to the Kerala website. However this doesn't, which suggests the report was compiled by their own reporters / correspondents in Srinagar. BTW we aren't talking about situation in Indian Kashmir. Don't stray from the topic.  S3000  ☎ 11:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont no how to explain this anymore ill say one last time the article from Thenews is qouting a official statement directly from srinagar (a territory under indian control) it is also the capital of indian administered kashmir so thats why they qoute it do you know how it works just research journalism and you shall understand my point. Another thing is that im not straying from the article i gave you that source to get you back into reality over what pakistan thinks of kashmir as you seem to be convincing your self with lame sources about what pakistan thinks of its own territory 86.153.130.47 (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A official statement by who from Srinagar? Because if it's by an Indian news agency, the source should have been stated. The fact is it is not. If there's no source stated, it means that TheNews' correspondents in Srinagar made the report. I don't think there's a rule of thumb that says Pakistani reporters in Srinagar should refer to Pakistani Kashmir as PoK.  S3000  ☎ 12:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this article looks strangely familiar. Looks more like "the news" article is a clumsy copyvio. India Journal should sue :-) Pahari Sahib 12:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 i recommend you use other arguments besides the lame articles pioneered by India ones which i have layed waste to earlier on in my comments see above good luck in your search for other sources 86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC) S3000 if you can just click on the source provided by PahariSahib which i also found a minute ago its a clear carbon copy of your so called pakistani article please reply with your reaction 86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was it was posted on a well known Pakistani news resource without citing the original source. I feel that means acceptance, because it never said "according to PTI (or whatever)".  S3000  ☎ 14:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again it clearly said srinagar on it so you assume its from srinagar its simple and this doesnt mean pakistan accepts POK term (nor does any country besides India) that doesnt even make sense at all 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, why doesn't this article say so although it's reported from Srinagar too? It clearly states IoK. It doesn't mean if a report is from Srinagar it has to side the country administrating it.  S3000  ☎ 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on how to move forward in the discussion, noone disputes that 'PoK' is a term used by Indian government and in Indian media to refer to areas in Kashmir under Pakistani administration. For me, there are two sets of questions that needs to be asked in order to determine this AfD. First, should PoK refer to an geographic area or a political concept? The former case (as used in [2] or [3]) is clearly unacceptable and POV. In the latter case, the follow-up question would be whether there is any detailed Indian legal framework regarding PoK? If its just a blunt territorial claim, there is no need for a PoK article, the claim can be mentioned in J&K, AJK, FANA, Kashmir, Kashmir dispute articles, etc. But if there is a more detailed framework, say that there is a planned administrate network for these areas, that PoK residents are considered as Indian citizens, that the J&K state apparatus consists of dormant districts across the LoC, etc, then an article could be kept along the lines of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. My understanding of Indian politics is however such that I don't believe that to be the case, thus I'd argue for deletion altogether. --Soman (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about China and Taiwan, it seems there's a dedicated article for Chinese Taipei although it's clearly a propoganda name coined by China to consolidate its claim over Taiwan. Chihnese Taipei is only used to address Taiwan in certain sporting events.  S3000  ☎ 11:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but why propaganda? Taiwan is part of People's Republic of China just as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is de iure part of India. The Chinese have not committed any misdeed regarding Pakistan-occupied Kashmir which could be conducive to its modern ordeal, right? Bogorm (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Taiwan never accepts this. They have their own argument and that's why it's called "Disputed" just as how Kashmir is. While you side China and India (on Taiwan and Kashmir), others have different viewpoints.  S3000  ☎ 12:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this. If POK is a commonly understood term, we should have an article on it. If an article Pakistan-administered Kashmir deals with the exact same geographic area, then we already have an article on POK and we need a simple redirect from POK to P-aK. The question should be "will there be (a reasonable number of) wikipedia users who will search for an article on POK?" rather than for us to try to make a decision on the political or geographical merits of the name and the region. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 12:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one billion users (population of Bharat)! Moreover, look at the three official sources above, using POK. Which non-Pakistani source would condescend to using PaK and show a blatant POV? Mine opinion is that PaK should redirect to POK, not vice versa. Bogorm (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark its a common fact that pakistanis portion of kashmir is regarded as administered by THE WORLD but some indian editors mainly on wikipedia insist it is occupied if that isnt POV then what is ?? 86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-administered Kashmir is the neutral way of collectively referring to this area. For non Pakistani sources how about here (Jane's Defence Weekly. Or the UNHCR, the BBC, CNN. Do all one billion people of India think exactly alike? and report things in exactly the same manner? How about an Indian website or Redriff another Indian website or AOL India

Pahari Sahib 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or not, we can't wish away the term POK. A simple google search reveals 55,400 hits for POK and 27,400 for P-aK. Since P-aK appears to be more neutral (Q: What does the UN call the region?), we can keep POK as a redirect to P-aK. Can't just ignore it though. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best suggestion I've heard. The article should be AFD because it is blatant POV. There should then be a protected redirect to the neutral article where all points are covered. Pahari Sahib 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very reasonable. Protected redirect of POK to PAK and move on is sensible.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is one-sided pro-Musharraf stance. As already said (below), when there is Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, why does one launch an assault on the sensible Indian claim of POK????! Consider the precipice in the numbers of users searching for POK and PaK (quoted below), which does not corroborate your proposal. Bogorm (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is launching assaults here. POK and P-aK refer to the same geographical entity and it makes no sense to have two articles for the same geographical entity. Different political claims on that entity can more than adequately be addressed in the article itself. P-aK is less judgmental than POK because administered has a neutral connotation while Occupied implies illegal occupation. Wikipedia does not make those sort of judgments and a protected redirect more than adequately caters to the wikipedia users who search for Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UN calls it pakistan administered kashmir not POK very well get ready for indian occupied kashmir page then 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC) One billion lol theres not even 35 million internet users in India freind your claims are so pathetic that its hurt now. Moving on India doesnt dictate anything over kashmir nor does pakistan the world calls both territories administered its not rocket sceince86.153.130.47 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audiatur et altera pars - one billion users from Bharat! Bogorm (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of argument is not helpful. What about 1-1.8 billion Muslims around the world? --Soman (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am agree with Soman's argument that Pakistan occupied Kashmir is a political concept or term used by the Indian government, but there is a geographical article Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Mentioning that particular geographical area under the title PoK will show Indian POV. An article like this can be kept along the lines of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China which will deal with the term or concept, not with the geographical area. Regarding Taiwan, I am not agree with User: S3000. Taiwan is an integral part of the People's Republic of China, despite this they claim to be a separate country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Taiwan is not an integral part of China. All I said is that it's a contentious statement because not everybody recognises it as a part of China. There are several small countries that recognise Taiwan's independence. Anyway lets leave Taiwan and China out of the scene as it doesn't concern those 2 countries.  S3000  ☎ 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think me comment has been misunderstood. First of all, no country in the recognize independent Taiwan, some countries recognize the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. That clarification aside, the key issue is whether there is anything to 'PoK' more than a name. The Taiwan Province of PRC has a administrative structure, it has district divisions etc., even though PRC has never been in control of Taiwan. The Taiwan Province is represented in the parliament of the PRC. Is there any such structures for 'PoK'? What does Indian law say about 'PoK'? Are its inhabitants seen as Indian citizens? My understanding is that so isn't the case. --Soman (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For those who support for PoK's deletion, please take some time to see this:

Pakistan administered Kashmir hit count on Wikipedia, August 2008: 69 hits

Pakistan occupied Kashmir hit count on Wikipedia, August 2008: 1,128 hits

PoK (which directly links to Pakistan occupied Kashmir) hit count on Wikipedia, August 2008: 1,456 hits

Stats retrieved using stats.grok.se/, created by Henrik.  S3000  ☎ 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Azad Kashmir had 16515 hits and Northern Areas had 4331 hits - a total of 20,846 over the same period. While Kashmir conflict had 6,896. Pahari Sahib 14:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that POK is a political indian term is all the proof any one needs that its a biased term with POV written all over it stats dont mean nothing this is not a tv show where demand (form indians) will judge over articles ITS BIASED full stop. 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your brilliant opinion.  S3000  ☎ 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 what you got to say about the statisitics given by above your comment it again puts your claims to no use 86.153.130.47 (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas are 2 seperate segments of Pakistani Kashmir, so it's not relevant. What we are talking about is a centralised article for all of Pakistani Kashmir. Hits matter because it shows what people are searching / looking for more often. Or in other words, what are the majority of those visiting Wikipedia addressing the area? It points towards PoK rather than PaK.  S3000  ☎ 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 Rather than searching for Pakistan-Administered Kashmir, most people seem to be searching for specific parts of the area. Also note Northern_Areas_(Pakistan) had 5,314 hits. Only people with a particular POV would search for Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. There already is a centralised article. Pahari Sahib 16:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an article for 'Pakistani Kashmir' in the first place? Kashmir covers the overall region, Kashmir conflict the politics of the issue. There is no 'Pakistani Kashmir' administration, and such an article would simply be a content mirror of the Kashmir/Kashmir conflict articles. --Soman (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3000 please read the pakistan administered article it covers all regions under pakistani control so whats your next excuse for keeping POK? 86.153.130.47 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)I dont really understand S3000 what do you want when all pakistani administered are clearly written in the pakistan administered article ??? there is no article about indian administered kashmir 86.153.130.47 (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari, as others and I have said, there's a need for a centralised article on all Kashmiri areas under Pakistani control. What I'm trying to say is that it is a relevant topic. Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas make up 2 seperate entities (provinces) within Pakistan. India however is claiming the whole area as one single entity, which is Pakistani occupied Kashmir (as how the Indians put it). The entity claimed also includes areas which were ceded to China by Pakistan, which India considers is illegal as the areas ceded were undisputedly a part of the Princely State of J&K that Pakistan acquired as a result of the 1947 war. India still considers these areas a part of "Pakistan occupied Kashmir". In comparison with the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, it is all under one entity which remains unchanged, and Pakistan is claiming nothing more than Jammu and Kashmir (or IoK). That's the purpose of this article. Based on this I don't think that it deserves to get deleted. Moreover I don't understand the anon sockpuppet (86.X.X.X) trolling around here, who votes "delete" then makes remarks in support of a merger. His comments should be totally disregarded.  S3000  ☎ 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have to disagree with you here, you say the "entity claimed also includes areas which were ceded to China by Pakistan", why should this be in an article called Pakistan Administered/Occupied Kashmir? The Aksai Chin is not under the control of Pakistan, it is governed by ChinaPahari Sahib 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is because India doesn't recognise it as a part of China but as a part of Pakistan occupied Kashmir. AK + NA + TKT = PoK.

Sorry for any ambiguoty, I didn't mean to include Aksai Chin. Only Trans-Karakorum Tract. Aksai Chin is a seperate issue with PRC and India claims it directly from them. It is not related to Pakistani Kashmir. China took control of Aksai Chin after the Sino-Indian war directly from India.  S3000  ☎ 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Nichalp. 1.2 billion people, their government and media perceive the disputed territory as Pakistan occupied kashmir. The issue is not whether it is right or wrong. I am of the opinion the article can be written in NPOV way detailing Indian POV, Pakistan POV and the rest of the world POV. Redirection is not an option though it may be redundant with other articles. Finally I would like to thank the user who brought this important issue to my attention. Docku^Hi 15:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) I don't see 1.2 billion votes here b) Who are you thanking for brining this to your attention?

Pahari Sahib 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docku is thanking Hax56 (talk · contribs), another Kashmircloud canvassing sock. --Soman (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care whether he is a sock? Docku^Hi 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherefore is this reckless fervent harassing resentment when Indian people are defending the position endorsed by their country? The Pakistani position is here, so whe should have them both! Please, consider the notion tolerance! Bogorm (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, may I ask what makes you think all canvassing users are a sock of Kashmircloud? Not that I'm supporting him but it's not ethical to blatantly throw accusations.  S3000  ☎ 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit by Hax56 bears a resemblence to this edit by Kashmir Cloud as does this edit by Cast788. All of which seems to be having the desired affect. Pahari Sahib 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep For reasons given below:

1. "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is a term widely used in Indian media. It is also the official term the Indian government for Kashmiri areas under Pakistani control. So, the encyclopedic value of this page is there as it is not some imaginary term.
2. And talking about POV, Both the terms, "Azad Kashmir" and "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" are POV terms but they represent the POVs of two nations and not just some individuals. Azad Kashmir means "Free Kashmir". And as User:Nichalp pointed out, isn't that a term which represents POV of Pakistan? So, Pakistani official POV terms are fine but the same rule does not apply to Indian official POV terms? Isn't that baffling?
3. There is no article covering the entire Kashmiri region under Pakistani control. Indian-Kashmir has this article "Jammu and Kashmir" and also articles on various divisions: Jammu, Kashmir valley and Ladakh. Pakistani-Kashmir has articles only on Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas.
4. The very content of this article should start with.. "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is a term used by India.." and doing so will make the apparent POV obvious. With the scope of this article very well defined right in the beginning, issues over its POV title should not exist.

To end, take time, think logically and then decide whether this article deserves to be there or not. --Enigma Blues (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere there is a political entity officially called "Azad Kashmir" - it may or may not be Azad but that is its official name. Perhaps if you were Tibetan you could argue perhaps that the People's Liberation Army hasn't really liberated anyone. Should that mean there should be an article called People's occupation army? Was the Free City of Danzig really free, should there then be an article with German view to counter this. If you look at the lead section of the Azad Kashmir article (perhaps could do with a clean up) - you will see it is not really the mouthpiece of the government. The article merely reflects the fact that there is an entity with that name. Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is clearly a viewpoint and therefore POV. Pahari Sahib 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no body is saying that "Azad Kashmir" is not a valid term. Both Azad Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir are different articles with different scope. And yes, if the Poles did have an official term for the Free City of Danzig during the time it was under German occupation, then that term, though a POV, had encyclopedic value. Let me give you a better example: South Ossetia is a de-facto independent state recognized only by couple of countries. And we also have an article on Shida Kartli, a Georgian name for an area which more or less corresponds to South Ossetia even though it does not have control over it. So, both Georgian and Ossetian terms for this piece of land get a mention and that is how it should be. I hope you get the point. --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Shida Kartli" is an administrative area that overlapped with South Ossetia, there is no hint of POV with these two terms. Whereas "Pakistan occupied Kashmir" is inherently POV Pahari Sahib 18:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is a POV term for Pakistanis in a manner similar to the way "Azad Kashmir" is POV for Indians. So, it balances out. Right? Anyways, it is not about tit-for-tat or POV terms. It is simply about the encyclopedic value of a country's official term for a particular piece of land it lays claim on. Simple! --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, before anyone else points it out, my attention was brought to this page my some other user. But my decision to vote here was inspired by User:Nichalp's comments. --Enigma Blues (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless discussing Azad Kashmir because it only links to the lesser area of Pakistani Kashmir. What he's saying is that while Azad is the official term used by Pakistan, PoK is likewise the official term used on all of Pakistani Kashmir (Azad, Northern Areas, Karakorum tract) by India.  S3000  ☎ 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is you dont bother looking for it here ill show you it Pakistan-administered Kashmir now take a look before making conclusions 86.163.153.184 (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and may I bring it your kind notice that it was I who reverted the redirect of this page to Azad Kashmir [4]. Talk about taking "a look before making conclusions". :P --Enigma Blues (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well it means your comments dont mean anything you rant about no article which ecompasses all the territories in pakistani control but there is you dont want to read because it doesnt mention your POV 86.163.153.184 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I'm pretty sure somebody would have eventually reverted my edit. Talking about which, your IP address is very similar to 86.151.127.244, the one who reverted by previous edit [5]. In fact, this and this proves that I'm dealing with same person here. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your straying now you claimed there is no article for pakistani admin regions but there is why did you lie when you knew there was and no one deleted that article just reverts 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about lying here. I just forgot about that article because I made that edit 6 days ago. I'm a human being who does not have a computer memory. Anyways, what is even more baffling is to see your sense of opportunism. First, you revert my edit and then you go around writing this?! Simply amazing. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppurtunism wow its funny and very convenient how so many editors forget all about the Pakistan-administered Kashmir once they reach the POK page my freind and other freinds i see a pattern of editors just nodding there heads to kashmir cloud and false claims such as no unified page this all comes from POV mentality 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I forgot about the article in manner similar to the way you forgot about the fact that you had a brief edit-war with me over the very same article. Your point being? --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it is also funny how a person who previously opposed an article now uses that very same article to support his points. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your second claim of Azad kashmir being POV as i recall its pakistani soil even if india mouns over it they have no right to push there names like POK onto there soil its like pakistan renaming jammu and kashmir Indian occupied kashmir and creating seperate pages for it this is what some indian editors are doing 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Pakistan has an official term for Jammu and Kashmir (I think Pakistani media call it "Indian-Held Kashmir"), then that term has equal encyclopedic value as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see the thing is Pakistan doesnt push its POV onto indian territory like jammu and kashmir articles the word occupied is also mentioned there why do you want a seperate article just in Indias POV 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Held is not the same as occupied its a mich lighter word its simple 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? You mean to say couple Pakistani Wikipedians stand for Pakistan? You mean to say Pakistan will not push its POV given an opportunity? All I know is that India does not go around naming its part of Kashmir with explicitly POV terms like "Azad" Kashmir. Anyways, this conversation is getting off-topic. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What i mean is that India can call jammu and kashmir what it wants pakistan cant do anything about that also india has not right at all to call azad kashmir POK i havent seen any pakistani editors conjuring articles like indian occupied kashmir just to tick of indians so i beleive Pakistan never pushes POV onto other soil besides during war offcourse just like india talks of locus standi i also say india should consider its locus standi 86.163.153.184 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the history and talkpage of Jammu and Kashmir article and you'll notice the number of times Pakistani terms for Indian Kashmir was added. Even now, the article clearly mentions Pakistani term for Jammu and Kashmir. If you want talk about Pakistanis pushing POV, have a look at the contributions of User:Nadirali, User:Unre4L and User:Szhaider. Anyways, I'm also open to the idea of deleting the Pakistan occupied Kashmir article and instead merging it into Pakistan-administered Kashmir article. --Enigma Blues (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down look at azad kashmir it also states indias POK claim and pakistani editors wouldnt create seperate POV articles as the one created by indians i/e POK 86.163.153.184 (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC) P.S i cant give you as many as 10 indian editors who also abuse pakistani articles with there POV theres always bad apples look at kashmir cloud hes used around 5 seperate accounts to push his "SAVE POK" message 86.163.153.184 (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I'm changing my vote to delete and merge with Pakistani-administered Kashmir. --Enigma Blues (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. We already have Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is by itself a totally POV term. Also, why does it matter what term India uses? It's Pakistani soil, not Indian. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The claim of it being Pakistani soil is disputed. Please get aquainted with the topic before making personal POV statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's under Pakistani control, so the least favorite name should be the Indian one. Also, "Pakistan-administered" seems much more NPOV to me than "Pakistan-occupied". Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However indian kashmiri soil is also disputed so its not for anyone to say which territory is disputed as both nations are claiming every part of kashmir better to stick no NPOV on both sides 86.163.153.184 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP. Why dont you create an account (just a friendly suggestion) so we have a better sense of with whom we are talking to. Docku^Hi 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, he can't, he's banned from wikipedia. I suggest his comments be ignored/reverted in the future, rather than answered. --Soman (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how you know that he is banned. If he really is, may be we should make the announcement bolder so no one else wastes their time talking to a banned user. Docku^Hi 20:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here: A comment to all editors/admins/etc. involved in this heated discussion and debate over the deletion of the PoK: IPs 86.163.153.184, 86.153.130.47, 86.158.235.148, among others, are all sockpuppet IPs of the blocked user Nangparbat. His/her racial and other comments are to be ignored from here on. That about covers it ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR major problems WITH Pak AS suggested by nichalp

1. terrorism missed out : nichalp's suggestion (in the notice directing page) misses out out on the export of terrorism from pok..which is refereed as "cross border terrorism" in india and abroad..Kashmircloud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. POK = PaK +(plus) trans-Karakoram tract - (minus) Siachen  : pakistan administered kashmir leaves out the CHINESE ADMINISTERED trans-Karakoram tract region outside its purview..further siachen is claimed as part of "Pakistan administered subregion of FANA"...BUT, SIACHEN is india-administered (not pakistan administered!!!).. hence it differs from POK which includes AJK, FANA as well as trans-Karakoram tract..SO PAK NOT EQUAL TO POK...rather PaK + trans-Karakoram tract - Siachen = POK Kashmircloud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. FOLLOW LOGIC UNIFORMLY : if we were to strictly follow UNITED NATIONS' stand, then AJK and FANA areas should be in a background map of Kashmir and Jammu.. (not of pakistan- AS IT IS NOW)..both articles should cease having post 1970 pakistan coined terms to refer to a region disputed from 1947..(time gap!!)...use all or none rule..if you believe UN wordings, then state UN positions everywhere WITHOUT PAKISTANI BIAS including the titles of "azad k" and other such "pakistan coined" places..else leave the topic as Pok with a redirect from pak (while mentioning the chinese control of trans-Karakoram tract)Kashmircloud (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. "PaK" is a term neither used by india nor pakistan officially or otherwise(unlike POK)..since we didn't remove a biased "azad k" article heading (since pakistan uses it after 1970s), it is appropriate that POK too must not be deleted/ altered since it is a stable term used since 1947..Kashmircloud (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely with Kashmircloud - PaK is not used by India and Pakistan, the Pakistanis have their version - Azad Kashmir, so must the Bharat version be present too in order to prevent one-sidedness! As eluidated by him and other users, POK does not include only PaK, but a much wider territory, do not mislead the readers. Bogorm (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issue in my draft. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that Bogorm is putting forth, having a 'Pakistani version' at Azad Kashmir and a 'Bharat version' at PoK is in direct contradiction to WP:FORK. Likewise we don't have separate articles for Republic of Macedonia and FYROM. If there are POV issue in the Azad Kashmir article, address those issues there. Unfortunately the name issue is not a POV issue, as 'Azad Kashmir' is a proper name of an administrative unit, not a description. We follow NPOV in the sense that we use the formal names for the existing administrations, Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir. --Soman (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you let Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia redirect to the Macedonist name and Macedonist stance is an incontrovertible POV! Look how the venerable Greek Wikipedia entitles its article - Πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας. Why on earth should the sensible name be disparaged? I know that the occupants are powerful, but one should take in consideration the oppressed people too, otherwise they became not only powerful, but omnipotent and the neutrality, balance and impartiality are sacrificed, as here, if the current article is deleted. Bogorm (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you miss the point. We utilize Republic of Macedonia, the formal name of the state as its name for the main article. Likewise we have Azad Kashmir (shorten version of formal name) at the article name. We don't have separate articles for the 'Greek version' or the 'Bharat version', as that would be a pov fork. The fact that Greek Wikipedia has some different POV issues than English wikipedia in this case goes without saying. As per the 'occupants is powerful' rhetoric, have you visited Muzaffarabad? Noticed any insurgency against Pakistani rule? Perhaps 100 000s of protestors clashing with occupation forces, curfews issued by the ruling power? --Soman (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not miss the point, remember that you are discussing the peninsula where I dwell! Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is now in the hands of Macedonist reign just as here - both names are the terminology of the occupier, please let the defenders of the oppressed people have teir position elucidated - Greece and India (in Macedonia there are only Bulgarians and Greeks, but that is a long dispute, I can get loquacious, if I should elucidate it). Bogorm (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pakistan Administered Kashmir - This used to be a redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir or Azad Kashmir (forgot which of the two it is). But anyway, "occupied" is a POV term, and Indian Government nomenclature does not apply to Wikipedia articles ... no matter how many people like it. The region is officially under Pakistani administration, whether or not India does not recognize it is not relevant here. --Ragib (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, redirect PaK to Pakistan occupied Kashmir instead. Which evidence do you have of the usage of PaK outside Pakistan? The three important documents for POK are quoted above (Shri Rajnath Singh, Shri Lal Krishna Advani and Arun Jaitley)? Bogorm (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have already expressed your opinion above, so please don't butt in here. Did it escape your attention that all your quotes are Indian views? Calling a location "occupied" inherently shows the POV. What next ... British-occupied Malvinas, Russian-occupied Georgia, Chinese province of Taiwan? Wikipedia is NOT the space for Indian or any other kind of jingoism, nor is it a soapboax for canvassed campaigns. Nichalp, on the other hand, has a good proposal. --Ragib (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, British occupied Malvinas. Oh, no, this article does not exist... When I improve my knowledge of Spanish and make myself familiar with the Argentinian position, I shall take up its creation. Would you object? Bogorm (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POVFORK. Thank you for your esteemed opinion. I appreciate it more if you go up in this page and add your viewpoints to the place where you pointed out your vote. Have a nice day. --Ragib (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Give it a break! Paanchbaar try korlam. And its showing edit conflict everytime. :-) Btw, why do you want to waste your time with someone, who obviously is not aware of the term POV? Shovon (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that Ragib is wasting his time with me? I only wanted to preserve the article expounding the Indian position, if my support is futile according to the Indian Wikipedians, I can retract it. But as for now, I shall not, because the Indian position is indispensable for Wikipedians from neutral states in order to make themselves familiar with the opposite legal situation. Bogorm (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to PaK. The version by Nichalp is a good, NPOV example of the proposed form for the article. Only thing missing is a map. I agree that PoK is a POV term, but so is Azad Kashmir. Sorry guys, for raising this. But after going through the whole discussion page, I believe that most of the editors only look at the issues wearing respective colored glass. Shovon (talk) 09:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day this POK article will be deleted no matter how many indian editors flock to this page to show there support for the article POV will not be tolerated p.s its pakistans territory so india cant rename it unless you want a seperate indian occupied kashmir with all the human rights abuses by india included i suggest you remove this article 86.158.238.188 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the end of the month I will have created the same article in the Danish Wikipedia thanks to my knowledge of the language with all the crucial sources and the position of Shri Lal Krishna Advani, Shri Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley, no matter how many Pakistani editors throng hither to impose its deltion here. Bogorm (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC) All i can say now is bring it on brin krishan and every Pro indian source you want i promise to you that your mission of POV will be killed 86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Pakistan-administered Kashmir and protect the redirect. The term "occupied" implies that they should not be there and hence is not NPOV, the term "administered" does not. In addition the article is horribly biased in favour of the Indian position, Nichalp's draft is a lot better and Pakistan-administered Kashmir could be worse. Whether or not the term is widely used by the Indian media does not determine where our article should be, and if we use a title used by India we take their side in the dispute. It does make it a reasonable search term, hence the need for the redirect, but it does not affect the article title. Hut 8.5 16:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i propose a new article which states that india occupied jammu and kashmir so pakistanis point of veiw is also states if india is allowed to state its claims so should Pakistan this talk of azad kashmir is pathetic pakistan can name its territory what it wants it doesnt need indian agreement why not call jammu and kashmir occupied see how the indian editors react just a suggestion however :) 86.158.238.188 (talk) 09:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Also look at all the protests against india in the past few days im saying this because some editors claim that what makes azad kashmir free well ill tell you this kashmiris arent bombing us or fighting the pak army thats whats happening in Jammu and kashmir 86.158.238.188 (talk) 10:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can bring all your pro indian sources like krishan or whatever there names are i assure your POV POK article will be destroyed bye bye now86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Kashmir appertains to the Republic of India. Bogorm (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i see your point then also azad kashmir is a territory of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan POK must be removed then if this article is not produced hand in hand to acheive neutrality with POK. 86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh i see your point then also azad kashmir is a territory of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan POK must be removed then if this article is not produced hand in hand to acheive neutrality with POK. 86.158.238.188 (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that 86.158 is a banned user, please dont waste your time talking to him. Infact, someone adviced me to revert his edits rather. Docku^Hi 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See when it comes to crunch time over indian occupied kashmir the editors make excuses 86.158.238.188 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First change needed is to not remove the word "Occupied". As per my comment above, it is the mindset of people that makes it different from Pakistan "Administered" Kashmir. So ideally, two articles SHOULD exist with the exact same term as used by Indian and international community. Remember : Occupied is NOT POV. It is official term used in India. --gppande «talk» 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "mindset of people" would be WP:OR for Wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how? Wikipedia should be website which contains information of all known things to human beings. How can we skip a term popularly used in India from mentioning anywhere in Wikipedia? This would be too ugly. Imagine - majority of Indians know the term but not Wikipedia. It defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia. --gppande «talk» 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

occupied is POV term on wikipedia it doesnt matter if indian government say it its still breaking rules and the indian government have no power over wikipedia 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC) There is already a pakistani administered kashmir page so whats the point of this since its made by a indian on the topic of kashmir its bound to POV so i disagree 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be I will advice gppande before he responds to this IP. I was adviced that the IP is a banned user. Thus, it is better you ignore him and respond :to other credible users. Docku^Hi 14:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again ducking the question i posed to ensure you dont have to answer something which you have no answer for 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When are administraters going to make a decision all i see is a circle of the same editors editing no new comments just the same jibberish 86.158.238.188 (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the word "administered"? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothings wrong with the word administered the only thing wrong here is POK i also suggest keeping new articles on pakistan out for the time being we already have one 86.153.128.50 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Nichalp has written a fair article. Perhaps, the addition of "sometimes referred to as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir in India" would help. (I say "sometimes" because, apparently, both P-aK and POK are used interchangeably in India - cf., the references provided by PahariSahib above.) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is already a pakistan administered kashmir page i think pakistani editors should get a chance of creating a article which is basically about there soil why do indians create pakistani pages 86.153.128.50 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question of ownership of articles by Indian or Pakistanis. See WP:OWN. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is good, but it doesn't solve the problem. We already have two articles on the same matter (Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) and now we got a third one. What should we do? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete PoK
2. Recreate it as a redirect to PaK
3. Update PaK with my draft

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you cant just redirect it to nichalps version because no one has agreed yet to reduce conflict (which will probably happen again tdue to this new article from nichalp) 86.153.128.50 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get what you are trying to say. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im saying that there is already a pakistani administered kashmir article whats the point of creating a new one the whole point of this discussion is just to get rid of the biased POK article 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Also why do you want to update PAK article for ??? i wont accept any merge of POK material with PAK 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Admiral Norton. Having an article with such title would not be a problem because "occupation" is a normal internationally recognized term. However, we are dealing with an obvious POV fork here. So, delete and merge any usable content.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was saying above. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, lets go step by step. Everybody agrees that Nichalp has better version than current PaK and PoK. Lets first understand -

1. Is there a need for two separate article - 1) PaK 2) PoK ?

In my opinion Yes. As I said, PaK is how Government of Pakistan considers that area under its constitution. Similarly PoK is how Government of India treats it. Since there is 180 degree different policies of the two nation for the same area - I argue there is a need for two separate articles on Wikipedia. This is exactly what I mean by mindset, again. Its a mindset - a lay man reading from deep of Africa or top of Andes mountains of South America needs to understand how the two nuclear rival states sees the disputed area. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the person from Andes will most likely be looking for info about the region. The Indo-Pak rivalry is well documented in Kashmir conflict, and having two articles on the same region based on Wikipedian's individual nationalist agenda is not acceptable. --Ragib (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles makes no sense to me. P-aK and POK are the same region. Different political claims can and should be handled in the same article. A lay man from the Andes would get only half the story if he/she wandered onto one or the other of the two pages, but would get a complete picture if there was just one article.--Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an article should be split in two major sections. One for Pak view point another for Indian viewpoint? In such a scenario the article will keep growing and eventually would need a split anyways. --gppande «talk» 09:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is the word "Occupied" POV?

In my opinion No. As said above it is the official term used by India. It is not the only country to use this term. Soviet occupied Afghanistan, NATO occupied territories of Iraq, Morocco occupied Western Sahara are all examples used across the globe to identify the regions. It is general term used across the media for different regions. PoK is the term used by India and should be used as the title for the Indian view article. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, why don't we also have "British-occupied Malvinas" along with the Falkland Islands article? --Ragib (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. Occupied implies that Pakistan has an illegal claim over the region. However, the legality of its claim is still open to question. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Occupied does imply illegal claim, BUT this is an "Indian" viewpoint. Not Wikipedia's viewpoint. For Wikipedia to remain neutral I suppose viewpoints of both countries be included. Not the viewpoint of country which administers it. This holds true for vice-versa region also. --gppande «talk» 09:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is there a need for any redirect?

I believe no. Both the articles of PaK and PoK will have their individuality (based on which Government uses that term). This way, views of Indian Government and Pak Government would be laid in their respective articles and will provide detail knowledge on the political/administrative standings as per their law. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Two articles for the same entity would be purely for definitional reasons. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 21:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the two articles are well written they would be much more than defination - believe me. Indian view point has tons of matter to write about PoK with good content. Not the content coming out nationalist feeling. Similarly Pak side will also have similar text about the region. It would much more than a dictionary. --gppande «talk» 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, but titling it in a way which favours one side or the other when the legality of the issue is still in question is also not in the interestes of wp. I wonder if there is way for the article to be titled in a way which reflects both positions.. Docku^Hi 23:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold out much hope for a stable neutral article but the article should try to present the facts neutrally (irrespective of whether it tilts toward one side or not). I like nichalp's version because it works as a summary article that then directs the reader to more detailed articles (Kashmir conflict, UN resolutions, etc.). The political status of Kashmir (whether it be the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir or the Pakistani region P-aK) is too complicated to be addressed in this article itself. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In any event, it makes no sense to have two articles on the same geographical region because two different POVs about the political status of that region exist. Both those articles would then be, by definition, non-neutral and in violation of the neutrality policy of wikipedia!--Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Well, there is nothing wrong in having two different articles articluating two viewpoits if they are neutrally written and rightly attributed. We all know that earth is spherical, which did not and should not stop wikipedians from having an article on flat earth theory. Docku^Hi 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect analogy. The two articles above are about concepts, theories, while the article in question is about a single region. The two opposing viewpoints are adequeately handled, or can be handled in the article Kashmir conflict. If we start allowing articles based on each Wikipedian's personal nationalist viewpoint, then pretty soon we'd end up with 10s of articles describing the same geographic region. Examples include Falkland Islands, Aksai Chin (or "Chinese-occupied Kashmir" ;) ), Taiwan (or Kuomintang occupied Chinese province" in the jingoist jargon). --Ragib (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose creation of such articles because I stand by my opinion and analogy regardless of whether you like it or not. Docku^Hi 01:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your information. Just wanted to point out the silliness of such articles - (North Korean Occupied Korea ,South Korean Occupied Korea), (Falklands, British-Occupied Malvinas), (Junagadh, Indian-occupied Junagadh), (Jammu and Kashmir, Indian-occupied Kashmir), (Tibet, Chinese-occupied Tibet), (Sikkim, Indian-occupied Sikkim), (Taiwan, Nationalist-chinese-occupied Taiwan province). That will just turn wikipedia into Encyclopedia Dramatica :D. --Ragib (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how silly or genuine those article can be and that is why I am not going to oppose if you are going to create one of them. I however dont think this article in question is a silly proposition. For the record, My position is title the article in a way which reflects the positions of two sides or have two articles. However, you are welcome to ridicule my position and laugh at it if it helps relieve some stress off you. Docku^Hi 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider expressing your opinions for the above three questions just below them. This way we would be addressing the issue one by one. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But last time I checked, Wikipedia had a policy titled WP:NPOV, and also "Government viewpoints" have exactly zero value in deciding Wikipedia content. --Ragib (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with the above user gppande it doesnt matter what india claims over pakistanis soil wether india calls it occupied or fairyland it doesnt matter what matters is neutrality occupied is NOT neutral. Also its so silly to have two articles one region its totally against wikipedia rules as a indian yourself you must agree to neutrality and veiw both regions as administered territories indian government (no government rules wikipedia to be clear) claims do not matter on wikipedia but we can mention the POK term on articles like PAK. However there WILL NOT BE A EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE LIKE POK just to accomidate Indian POV after reading the PAK article it covers everything so theres no need for a new PAK article 86.153.128.50 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to close this AFD. Please see The talk page =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have semi-protected this page for 4 hours due to excessive inflammatory comments by 86.153.128.50. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! I don't like his racism, I respect his viewpoints, but I cannot handle something against my culture and nationality. Wikipedia is harmonious, lets keep a unanimous, peaceful front! BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 03:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of my position in table form.

Region	View1	View2
Earth	Spherical shape	Flat shape
disputed Kashmir region	Pakistan occupied	Pakistan administered

Two separate articles on two independent views on the shape of the earth (though one proven incorrect) in wikipedia highlight that two viewpoints of a geographical region if held by significant number of people and written in a way without violating wikipedia policies can be accomodated.

I know some people are going to call this analogy ridiculous and irrelevant and some are going to point to WP:OTHERSTUFF. Well, opinion is an opinion, there goes. Docku^Hi 03:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: May be I should clarify that I put the viewpoints in random order, definitely no other intention. Docku^Hi 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we don't need two different articles on the same subject, just include both viewpoints. Forking POV's is not the answer and the term 'occupied' is a POV phrase used by the Indian media, per Hut 8.5. - Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm...voting ended a while ago, mate. Nichalp wanted to close it in favour of his new proposition. Perhaps, favour isn't the correct word in this little sentence ;) BlackPearl14^{[talkies!•contribs!]} 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this AfD is not closed yet. There were two proposals to close it, but it isn't not closed as of now. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a suggestion -- Once this is closed, how about using our collective energy in collaborating to make this a featured article? FA are more stable, and would serve as a model article of collaboration from opposing groups. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now that's an interesting suggestion, perhaps we could see also then see emergence of Wikipedia:WikiProject India Pakistan Collaboration?  :-) Pahari Sahib 06:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No to the proposal of a NAC at this point: Settling for 'no consensus' in this afd just makes the editwarring permanent. This afd had been settled as delete long time ago if it wasn't for the nationalist canvassing and constant disruptions. The way forward is semiprotection and discussion concrete positions. I appreciate Nichalp's initiatives as very constructive, although I don't fully agree with them. --Soman (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.