Talk:UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute

Page title

I think this page is mistitled. UN Military Observer Group was just the body that supervised the ceasefire. UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was the body that was responsible for carrying out negotiations between India and Pakistan. The article discusses both, but the page title doesn't reflect that.

I propose that we change the title to a more general term "UN mediation of India and Pakistan" (or "UN mediation of Kashmir"), for which there are plenty of reliable sources. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict

I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:

• An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
• A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
• A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.
• Pinging @Bishonen, EdJohnston, SpacemanSpiff, Doug Weller, and Floquenbeam: to take a look and see if anyone needs to be cautioned/blocked right now and to help keep an eye on things.

--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Restoration of unsourced material

Anmolbhat your recent revert is not in line with our policies. The WP:BURDEN rests on your shoulders as the restorer to evince direct verifiability, failing which will mean I have to rollback. Winged Blades of Godric, you might want to monitor this. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section needs updated

The Lead does not state the present position as to why UNMOGIP is powerless here. India's position that it is out of the UNMOGIP purview after Shimla agreement. UNMOGIP mandate is lost. At present it only mentions the historical stuff--DBigXrayᗙ 13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead is certainly incomplete, but we cannot simply put one country's position in it without opening a Tindora's box. I will think about how to expand it neutrally. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks KT for the kind reply, Obviously, The lead would also need Pakistan's position as well. regards --DBigXrayᗙ 10:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Biased selection of facts and observations?

There are some pointed observations masquerading as neutral facts in the article such as statements like “but India did not offer an alternative”. There’s no need to include such statements. Neither India nor Pakistan could come to a solution, that’s why the UN intervened in the first place. Jeerabasmati (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 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: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

---

UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute → UN mediation of the Kashmir conflict – The term "Kashmir dispute" is never used anywhere in article titles except here. Therefore, we should rename this article to be WP:CONSISTENT with several articles. Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 15:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Kashmir dispute" generally means the India-Pakistan dispute regarding Kashmir. That is what the UN Security Council mediated. It didn't mediate other issues like autonomy, internal politics etc., which are also covered under "Kashmir conflict". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Consistency is indeed at issue since the main title header "Kashmir dispute" is a redirect to the article header "Kashmir conflict". If Wikipedia contained two separate articles — one about the dispute that brought UN mediation and another about the conflict that covers non-mediated issues like autonomy, internal politics etc — then the current title would be appropriate. However, since there is only one article (although the article bears the tag, "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. (August 2019)") and the article's main header is "Kashmir conflict", then the main header of this related article should also use the term "Kashmir conflict", rather than "Kashmir dispute". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the most part, the United Nations Security Council mediated on the actual "on-paper" issues that either side had with respect to Kashmir's future (i.e. the proposed plebiscite). They're not serving as mediators as far as the Kashmir conflict in its entirety goes (this includes all the aspects of the Kashmir issue, such as wars, politics, administration, bilateral relations, etc.) – the only aspect of the entire Kashmir conflict that the United Nations mediated on was the direct question of who the region should go to and by what means. Every other aspect of the conflict has been an India–Pakistan deal with minimal, if any, third-party involvement. By this standard, there's a fine line between serving as a mediator for the whole India–Pakistan conflict in Kashmir versus just serving as a mediator for the core issue (the Kashmir dispute) from which the conflict is stemming from and being sustained. There are broader issues that comprise the Kashmir conflict, such as the ongoing insurgency or China's role, while the UN mediation covered the dispute chiefly between India and Pakistan. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:45, 11 January 2021 (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.

Requested move 20 October 2021

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 per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) _signed, Iflaq ^(talk) 12:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

---

UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute → Kashmir dispute and the United Nations – The role of the United Nations is no longer (only limited to) mediation. UNGA statements by India and Pakistan, OHCHR reports on the dispute, OHCHR statements, and other types of related involvement by the United Nations has been seen. Mediation is now a sub-section. DTM (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - The UN mediation was a highly significant process and is worthy of its own article. There can be other articles however, but the other aspects seem minor and perhaps belong in the NEWS category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Same arguments as K3. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support - per Simla Agreement, signed by both India and Pakistan, kashmir issue is a bilateral matter, to be resolved by both countries, see shimla agreement and read its 1(ii) which says that the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. JantaKa (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is a non-argument. The articles on Wikipedia are not necessarily about the situation on the ground today. And "to be resolved" is about the future, which Wikipedia doesn't cover at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: Sock comments stricken off, last comment removed — DaxServer (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2021 (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.

The following seems to be violating Wikipedia No Original Research Policy

"With regard to United Nations, India has undergone a shift from internationalization (1948 to 1950-1965) of the Kashmir (India-Pakistan) question to a preference and insistence on bilateralism (1965-1972 onwards), while Pakistan has largely preferred internationalization of the issue through various bodies of the United Nations. India's shift includes the substantial change in policy during the 1950s and onwards related to self-determination and conducting a plebiscite. "

Sources?

India and Pakistan signed a bilateral agreement in 1972 where mediation from third parties is avoided and issues are to be resolved amicably between the two countries. Pakistan and India have both reiterated the same on numerous occasions even though they may have asked for some buffers in times of heat. Suggesting different policies for two countries without sources can be misleading to readers. Even if you don't agree with my edit because of your preferred point of view, I propose the following:

"With regard to United Nations, the Kashmir question has undergone a shift from internationalization (1948 to 1972) to a more bilateral approach (1972 onwards)"

Citing a deviation from bilateralism is antithetical to both countries' stated policy on the matter and goes completely against the entire spirit of the relations between two countries. The previous version seems vague and makes the reader question the policy of bilateralism itself which is not the case as has been reiterated by Pakistan, India, USA and other countries on numerous occasions.-- I dont agree with this (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)