Gog the Mild (talk | contribs) WikiProject assessment Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
→Recent edits: new section |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== All Indian Citation == |
== All Indian Citation == |
||
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)) |
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)) |
||
== Recent edits == |
|||
{{U|Sms2816}}, You are making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47&type=revision&diff=839563206&oldid=839508042 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:SOAPBOX]]ing for Pakistan include statements like: |
|||
* {{tq|which Pakistan started doing after passing of UN Resolution dated January 5, 1949}} |
|||
* {{tq|Pakistan wished to vest in the commission of the UN the authority to arrange for: (1) the establishment of an impartial interim administration in state; (2) the withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir; (3) the return of refugees; (4) the holding of a free, fair, and unfettered plebiscite.}} |
|||
You have to maintain [[WP:NPOV]] and give equal [[WP:WEIGHT]] for both India and Pakistan. This is not Pakistanopedia! |
|||
How are {{tq|tribesmen}} separate from "nationals"? You are padding up the LEAD unnecessarily with loads of verbiage. {{tq|minimum level required for law and order}} says the same thing {{!xt|minimum strength required for maintenance of law and order}} and with fewer words. I don't understand the point of changing this. |
|||
Please discuss your concerns here instead of wasting time with pointless edits. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:07, 4 May 2018
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sources
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)
- Actually that bit about hearing from both India and Pakistan is in one of the preambulatory clauses at the top. I would like to see analysis and that needs to be source but I think everything here right now can be found in the text. - Schrandit (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- http://www.google.co.in/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENIN276&=&q=unsc+resolution+47&btnG=Google+Search&meta= In a bit of rush to do analysis, but there's plenty of citable resources.
UN removing Kasmir from its list
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)
All Indian Citation
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))
Recent edits
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:
which Pakistan started doing after passing of UN Resolution dated January 5, 1949
Pakistan wished to vest in the commission of the UN the authority to arrange for: (1) the establishment of an impartial interim administration in state; (2) the withdrawal of all troops from Kashmir; (3) the return of refugees; (4) the holding of a free, fair, and unfettered plebiscite.
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.
Please discuss your concerns here instead of wasting time with pointless edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)