This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The text to the resolution of obviously key, but its more of an external links/see also issue. The analysis and other wordings in the article ought to be sourced. For example: "after hearing arguments from both India and Pakistan the Council increased the size of the Commission established by..." the after hearing parts and the increase are outside the scope of the text of resolution 47. Lihaas ( talk) 09:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been mentioned in this article that: Moreover, in November 2010, United Nations excluded Jammu and Kashmir from its annual list of unresolved international disputes under the observation of the United Nations Security Council. The references cited only mention a Pakistani diplomats objection to a UK envoy not mentioning Kashmir in the list of long running disputes. As far as I have searched, the UN does not keep a "list" of disputed areas from which Kashmir has been removed; as this line seems to say in this article. If anyone can provide any official UN reference to back this up; it would be great. Otherwise, I think it should be removed or at the very least re-worded so as it doesn't give a wrong impression. Please discuss this issue here on the talk page, thanks! Sohebbasharat ( talk) 13:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Almost 90% of total citations for this article about the UN Resolution on disputed region of Jammu & Kashmir between Pakistan and India, have been taken from Indian websites. The Indian propaganda being, to show as if the UN does not consider the Kashmir worth calling it a dispute anymore or of importance. A balance needs to be drawn here. (SarfarazLarkanian 19:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC))
Sms2816, You are making repeated attempts to skew this article and to make it appear as something it is not. There was no "line of resolutions" when this Resolution was passed. That is pure WP:OR and factually false.
Your WP:SOAPBOXing for Pakistan include statements like:
You have to maintain WP:NPOV and give equal WP:WEIGHT for both India and Pakistan. This is not Pakistanopedia!
How are tribesmen
separate from "nationals"? You are padding up the LEAD unnecessarily with loads of verbiage. minimum level required for law and order
says the same thing minimum strength required for maintenance of law and order and with fewer words. I don't understand the point of changing this.
Your edits also show WP:Lead fixation, which is not healthy.
Please discuss your concerns here instead of wasting time with pointless edits. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
UN resolution 47, Section 1a specifies exactly which Pakistanis will have to withdraw. It is important because not specifying them exactly alludes to the notion that all Pakistanis must withdraw from the state of Jammu and Kashmir. To prove my point I am attaching a link to the News in Kashmir whose writer presumably has used the same wiki page to put down incorrect facts.
"Accordingly, Pakistan was to withdraw all its nationals from the territory under its control and India was to reduce forces in its part of Kashmir which was to be followed by a plebiscite"
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/implement-un-resolutions-in-kashmir-says-jeremy-corbyn/article28984650.ece/amp/?__twitter_impression=true Srazihaider ( talk) 11:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals that entered Kashmir for the sake of fighting". Does this satisfy your concern? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Before this edit, wordings of the Hindu exactly matched the wiki wordings and hence my inference, nevertheless I think this edit at least reduces the ambiguity. As for as your comment regarding Pakistani local authorities staying put is concerned, I agree to it but it is unrelated to my edit. Srazihaider ( talk) 18:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)