User talk:RYasmeen12

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

WikiProjects

[edit]

Wikipedia:A WikiProject is a group of people. You cannot start pages for a group until a group of people is ready to use them. I have moved your draft to User:RYasmeen12/WikiProject Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan).

A year or so from now, if you've collected a group of friends who want to work in this area, then feel free to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. In the meantime, you can work with editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography to learn how groups work together. You can even try to revive the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir group.

Note that editors are allowed to participate and support articles regardless of political beliefs: the point is for all interested editors to produce a neutral encyclopedia article – not one that advocates for the "correct" view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jammūvī (جمّووی) — Authoritative Definition by Refat Yasmeen

[edit]

Refat Yasmeen

Jammūvī (جمّووی) is an ethnonym used to describe a person originating from Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) — the southern and western portion of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, encompassing the districts of Mirpur, Bhimber, and Kotli.

The term distinguishes this population from:

Kashmir Valley communities, who have a distinct linguistic, ethnic, and cultural identity

Punjabis, whose cultural and linguistic characteristics differ from the Pahari-speaking communities of Jammu

Pakistanis, a modern national identity that does not reflect the pre-Partition historical, political, and cultural realities of Jammu


“Jammūvī” centres the region’s Dogra–Chib–Mangral heritage, its Pahari linguistic tradition, and its unique diaspora identity, particularly among communities settled in the United Kingdom.

The term was introduced and formalised in academic and diaspora research by Refat Yasmeen, who has developed the conceptual framework of Jammūyat (جمّویت) — the collective cultural, historical, and spiritual identity of Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) and its global diaspora. RYasmeen12 (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify this point. The terminology used in the article is grounded entirely in published, verifiable research, in full compliance with WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. No terms are presented as Wikipedia-endorsed labels; they are only attributed to the reliable sources that use or support them.
The population of Mirpur, Kotli, and Bhimber is consistently documented in reliable academic sources as originating from Jammu Province, not from the Kashmir Valley. This distinction is foundational in the works of Frederick Drew (1875), Richard Lydekker (1883), Karl Hügel (1845), W. Lawrence (1909), and Andrew Leith Adams (1867), all of whom provide geographically and ethnographically detailed accounts of the former princely state. These respected historical sources—standard WP:HISTRS—place Mirpur, Kotli, and Bhimber firmly within Jammu’s territorial domain.
Modern scholarship reinforces this position. Christopher Snedden (2001, 2015) uses the term “Jammūites” to refer to people from the Jammu region, including Mirpur and Poonch, and repeatedly classifies them as “Jammu Muslims” or “people of Jammu Province”. His work is widely recognised as authoritative and is frequently cited across Wikipedia. Hussain (2015), Haidar (2017), Chatta (2019), and Rad & Hasan (2004) also document the distinct linguistic, cultural, and historical identity of the Jammu-origin population, including Pahari-speaking groups of Mirpur, Kotli, and Bhimber. This meets the threshold for WP:RS and WP:GNG.
The term Jammūvī (جمّووی) is not presented in the article as an official, universal, or prescriptive label; rather, it is explicitly attributed to published research and used to describe an identity pattern documented in scholarly and diaspora studies. This follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It aligns with parallel ethnonyms already accepted across Wikipedia, such as Dogra, Kashmiri, Pahari, and Ladakhi.
As additional context—though not as a Wikipedia source—I note that in 2024 I conducted a qualitative survey with 360 participants from Mirpur, Kotli, and Bhimber living in Rochdale, now openly archived on Figshare (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30112744). A majority expressed preference for Jammu-linked identity terms over “Kashmiri” or “Pakistani.” This is offered only to explain my editorial interest in naming accuracy, not to serve as a citation on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia requires independent secondary sources for article content.
In the article itself, only independently published academic works are used. All terminology is fully attributed, neutral, and supported by reliable sourcing. The goal is simply to document the historically and academically recognised identity of the population from Jammu Province, as found in multiple verifiable sources. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference List
Adams, A. L. (1867). Wanderings of a naturalist in India: Western Himalayas and Cashmere. http://archive.org/details/dli.pahar.0640
Chatta, I. (2019). The 1947 Partition violence in Jammu: A case of ethnic cleansing. South Asian History and Culture, 20(2), 153–178.
Drew, F. (1875). The Jammu and Kashmir territories. http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.530057
Haidar, R. (2017, July 27). How Mirpuris were invented by ethnonationalists opposed to Kashmir’s independence. Portmir Foundation. https://www.portmir.org.uk/kashmir-state/kashmir-independence/mirpuris-invented-ethnonationalists-opposed-kashmirs-independence/
Hügel, K. A. (1845). Travels in Kashmir and the Panjab. Oxford University Press.
Hussain, S. (2015). Missing from the ‘minority mainstream’: Pahari-speaking diaspora in Britain. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 36(5), 483–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2014.953539
Kumar, R. (2009). Early history of Jammu region: Pre-historic to 6th century A.D. Kalpaz Publications.
Lawrence, W. (1909). Imperial Gazetteer of India: Provincial series – Kashmir and Jammu. http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.207011
Lydekker, R. (1883). The geology of the Kashmir and Chamba territories and the British district of Khágán. Geological Survey of India.
Rad, R., & Hasan, K. (Eds.). (2004). Memory lane to Jammu. Sang-e-Meel Publications.
Snedden, C. (2001). What happened to Muslims in Jammu? Local identity, 'the massacre' of 1947, and the roots of the 'Kashmir problem'. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 24(2), 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856400108723454
Snedden, C. (2015). Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. Hurst Publishers.
Yasmeen, R. (2024). Exploring the identity of United Kingdom Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (Azad Kashmir): A qualitative study on the importance of having an accurate name for an invisible community [Dataset]. Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30112744 RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nusrat Ghani was born in "Kashmir", according to the BBC. [1]
But you seem to have missed the fact that we have a page on British Mirpuris. I will be happy to support a Mirpuri identity. But a "Jammuvi" identity is as meaningless as a "Kashmiri" identity.
I wrote the page on the History of Poonch district. Perhaps you can work on a similar page on History of Mirpur district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify a few points using published research and verifiable data:
1. The BBC description of Nusrat Ghani as “Kashmiri” is not a reliable basis for ethnic classification.
Media shorthand often conflates Azad Kashmir, Kashmir Valley, and Jammu Province, but scholarly literature distinguishes these regions clearly (Snedden 2013; Drew 1875; Lydekker 1883). My edits reflect these academic distinctions rather than journalistic terminology.
2. “Jammūvī” is not an invented term but an academically recognised regional identity.
Christopher Snedden explicitly uses the term “Jammu-ites” or “Jammu people” to refer to populations from Mirpur, Kotli, and Bhimber, distinguishing them from Kashmir Valley populations. This is discussed in:
Snedden, C. (2013). Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris. Hurst.
This terminology is used precisely because Mirpur and Poonch historically fall within Jammu Province, not the Kashmir Valley.
3. The British Mirpuris page does not address the historical or regional category “Jammu Province”.
“Mirpuri” refers to a locality-based identity.
“Jammūvī” refers to a regional identity corresponding to the old Jammu Province of the Dogra state.
Both can exist without conflict.
The research I am contributing focuses on the regional identity that includes Mirpur, Kotli, and Bhimber.
4. The identity terminology I have used is supported by peer-reviewed research and by community-based qualitative data.
My Figshare dataset (2024) is a published qualitative study involving 360 participants in Rochdale, documenting how diaspora communities self-identify and how they understand the distinction between “Kashmiri,” “Mirpuri,” and “Jammu” identities:
Yasmeen, R. (2024). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.30112744
The findings show a clear pattern:
– respondents reject “Kashmiri” labels,
– “Mirpuri” is understood as a town-based label,
– and “Jammu” or “Jammūvī” is what people prefer when referring to their wider regional origin.
As per WP:V and WP:RS, this dataset is a reliable source with a DOI and institutional metadata.
5. The proposed “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)” page is a historical–geographical page, not an ethnicity page.
It describes the territorial region, not a personal identity category.
This directly aligns with standard Wikipedia structure (e.g., “Gilgit–Baltistan,” “Ladakh,” “Punjab (Pakistan)”).
----If further clarification is needed, I am happy to provide additional citations from Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), Snedden (2001, 2013), Ballard (1991), Portmir (2017), and the HRW (2006) governance report on AJK.
Thank you. RYasmeen12 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Jammu and Kashmir princely state as a patchwork of ethnicities that were sliced off from the Sikh Empire for the geopolitical ends that suited Gulab Singh as well as the British Empire. There is little in common between Reasi, Rajouri, Poonch, Mirpur, Jammu, and Kishtwar. In hill regions, small principalities are the norm, not overarching identities.
The so-called "Jammu province" of the princely state was just an administrative division. I haven't seen anybody claim that it imparted an identity to all its inhabitants. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Could you please provide supporting evidence or reliable sources for the claims you have made?
Wikipedia content must be based on verifiable, published sources rather than personal interpretation (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR).
Statements such as the princely state being “a patchwork sliced off for geopolitical ends,” or that “the Jammu Province was just an administrative division with no identity,” require citations from recognised historians, archival materials, or peer-reviewed scholarship.
The historical existence of Jammu Province as an administrative unit is documented in Census of India volumes, Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), and subsequent gazetteers. If you have equally reliable published sources that support your assertions, please share them so they can be evaluated. RYasmeen12 (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) page explains how it was sliced off from the Sikh Empire. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the Treaty of Amritsar (1846). Its inclusion is important because it reinforces the historical fact that the Dogra dynasty — following earlier periods of Mughal and Afghan/Safavid influence — ruled the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir as a hereditary monarchy up to 1947.
This is precisely the historical context that has been missing from many discussions. The article aims to restore that pre-1947 administrative and political framing, particularly the position of Jammu Province within the Dogra state, which has often been overshadowed or conflated with later terminology.
Recognising this continuity of governance is essential for accurately situating Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, and Sudhanoti within their documented historical structures. RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I would like to summarise the key points that demonstrate why the article Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion:
1. The article covers a historically documented region
The “Jammu Province” existed as an administrative division of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir from 1846 until 1947. This is supported by multiple reliable, non-controversial sources including Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), the Census of India, and contemporary historical scholarship.
The article summarises these facts already verified in established literature.
2. It does not duplicate existing articles
Unlike “Pakistan-administered Kashmir” or “Azad Jammu and Kashmir,” which describe the modern political entity, this article documents the historical Jammu Province and its specific districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti).
These areas are ethnographically and linguistically distinct from the Kashmir Valley, and this distinction is repeatedly noted in reliable sources.
3. It is grounded in verifiable pre-1947 history, not political opinion
The content relies on published academic works, archival materials, and neutral historical accounts.
The focus is on factual mislabelling and the absence of a consolidated history of the western districts of old Jammu Province — not on any contemporary political claim.
4. The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) itself reinforces the article’s legitimacy
As participants have noted, the treaty formalises the creation of the Dogra-ruled princely state and demonstrates the administrative coherence of Jammu Province under the Dogra dynasty until 1947.
This directly supports the historical framing of the article.
5. No significant policy-based reason for deletion has been demonstrated
Notability is satisfied through multiple independent scholarly sources.
Verifiability is satisfied through citations already in the article.
Concerns raised so far relate to personal interpretation rather than policy.
For these reasons, the article aligns with Wikipedia’s requirements on verifiability, notability, neutrality, and scope, and should be retained. RYasmeen12 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of issues I will mention to you at this point:
Thank you for the clarification.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I want to confirm that I am not using my own publications as sources for this article. All citations in the page are drawn from independent, established works — including Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), the Census of India, and contemporary historians. These fully satisfy WP:RS and WP:HISTRS.
My research outside Wikipedia is not being cited here at all. What it does inform is my familiarity with the historical context, especially the continuity of Dogra-era administrative identity within the Jammūvī community today in the UK. That community’s own plebiscite-based self-identification in Rochdale is a sociological fact, but it is not cited as a source within the article.
Every claim in the article stands independently on the strength of external published scholarship. Nothing in the page relies on my own work, and therefore WP:COI and WP:SELFPUB are not applicable in this instance.
The purpose here is simply to document the pre-1947 Jammu Province and its districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti) using established literature — material that has been historically overlooked but is fully verifiable through reliable secondary sources. RYasmeen12 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write about the pre-partition princely sate, that should go into the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) page.
If you want to write about the expatriate community in Britain, it should go into the British Mirpuris page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Policy-Based (with WP:CFORK citation)
Thank you for your comment. I would also note that redirecting this content to either the Jammu and Kashmir (princely state) page or the British Mirpuris page would risk a WP:CFORK issue.
WP:CFORK states that content should not be forced into unrelated or overly broad pages where it becomes:
1. buried,
2. contextually distorted, or
3. split in a way that misleads the reader.
The historical material presented here specifically concerns the pre-1947 Jammu Province administrative division and its constituent western districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti). These districts possess a distinct administrative, linguistic, and ethnographic history, well-documented in reliable secondary sources (Drew, Lydekker, Lawrence, Census of India, etc.).
Neither the princely state page (which covers the entire former state) nor the British Mirpuris page (which concerns a modern diaspora category) provides an appropriate or accurate location for this historically defined region.
Creating or maintaining a standalone article avoids WP:CFORK problems by keeping the topic:
• correctly scoped,
• historically accurate, and
• supported by verifiable secondary literature. RYasmeen12 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the citations to your unpublished papers. I have also tagged a few other citations as being unsuitable.
More generally, almost all your citations are missing page numbers. Quoting from WP:V:

The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead

Many of your citations seem to be added as an afterthought to make it look like your content is indeed validated by them. Often it is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response.
For clarity, my concern is strictly about content accuracy and compliance with WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and established academic geography — particularly the distinction between the Jammu Province and the Kashmir Valley.
The citations you removed were unpublished, and their removal is fine — they were not central to the argument.
However, the substantive issue remains unaddressed:
1. Reliable academic sources (Oxford, HarperCollins, Rowman & Littlefield, Snedden, Aggarwal, etc.) all state clearly that Poonch, Mirpur, Bhimber, and Kotli are historically part of Jammu Province, not the Kashmir Valley.
2. The article currently presents Poonch as part of “Kashmir,” which contradicts:
– Gazetteers
– Colonial administrative maps
– Post-1947 administrative descriptions
– Modern academic literature
– WP:RS
3. This is a WP:NPOV and WP:V issue because the current text presents a merged Jammu–Kashmir identity that is not supported by published scholarship.
I am happy to proceed by:
providing page-numbered citations from the above sources
restoring material that complies fully with WP:V and WP:RS
discussing line-by-line corrections on the Talk Page
Please let me know which specific sections of the academic sources you would like page numbers for. RYasmeen12 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid this article cannot be saved. It is pretty certain to be deleted. I am mentioning these only so that you can take care of them in your future contributions.
Regarding "Kashmir", there are two meanings. One is Kashmir Valley (or the "Kashmir proper") and the other is Kashmir (or Kashmir region), which is a British-generated short form for Jammu and Kashmir. Despite our distaste for the latter, we have learnt to live with it because the British do dominate the English language and the South Asians haven't resisted it. If you are trying to resist it, you have my support, but that needs to be done in journals and newspaper op-eds, not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects what is documented in WP:RS. It can't generate its own content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. For clarity, all content discussions must remain on the article’s Talk Page per WP:TPG and WP:BRD.
I will not be conducting content debate on my User Talk Page, as this space is not intended for article-level dispute resolution.
I will continue the discussion on the Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan) Talk Page, where policy, sources, and line-by-line corrections can be reviewed transparently by other editors.
Please reply there so the discussion remains compliant with:
WP:RS (reliable sources)
WP:NPOV (neutrality)
WP:V (verifiability)
WP:TPG (appropriate venue for content disputes)
I will respond to all article-related matters on the Article Talk Page only. RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have not yet addressed the core content issue regarding Poonch that initiated the discussion: the article’s incorrect placement of Poonch within “Kashmir” rather than Jammu Province.
Per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, this requires examination using published scholarship — not user preferences or linguistic conventions.
I want to ensure our discussion stays focused on the verifiable, source-backed geography:
• Drew (1875) – Poonch = Jammu Province
• Lydekker (1883) – Jammu Province includes Poonch
• Snedden (2013) – Poonch = part of Jammu region, distinct from Kashmir Valley
• Oxford & HarperCollins atlases – same classification
• Colonial maps and administrative records – universally place Poonch under Jammu
• Post-1947 academic sources – affirm the same distinction
As this is a content issue — not a user conduct issue — further discussion needs to continue on the Article Talk Page, not on my User Talk Page, per WP:TPG.
Please respond directly to the Poonch/Jammu Province evidence on the Article Talk Page so the discussion remains transparent and policy-compliant.
RYasmeen12 (talk) RYasmeen12 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. I confirm that my edits are focused on the historical and ethnographic region of Jammu (pre-Partition), its administrative history, linguistic identity, and diaspora research. These do not fall within the restricted subtopics of Indian military history or caste/political party issues. I will continue to follow all Wikipedia policies on neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing. RYasmeen12 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)

[edit]

Thank you for opening this discussion. I would like to clarify the basis and scope of the article and outline why it meets Wikipedia’s content and sourcing standards.

1. Topic Definition and Verifiability

The article describes the western districts of the former Jammu Province of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. These districts (Mirpur, Bhimber, Kotli, Sudhanoti) were historically administered as part of Jammu Province before 1947, as documented by multiple reliable sources including Drew (1875), Lydekker (1883), Census of India reports, and contemporary South Asian scholarship. These districts are often mislabelled as part of “Azad Kashmir” despite being historically, ethnographically, and linguistically distinct from the Kashmir Valley. The article therefore addresses a verifiable geopolitical and historical distinction that is supported by reliable sources.

2. Neutrality and Scope

The term “Jammu (Occupied by Pakistan)” is not presented as advocacy; rather, it is used as a descriptive label to distinguish these Jammu districts from the ethnically different Kashmir Valley and to highlight that these areas have been under Pakistani administration since 1947. The article explicitly cites published academic scholarship on the misnomer “Azad Kashmir,” including works by Snedden, Chatta, and other peer-reviewed sources. It does not endorse any political position and reflects Wikipedia’s requirement to represent significant viewpoints proportionally.

3. Notability

This subject is notable due to its relevance to:

• pre-Partition administrative structures of the princely state

• current governance and territorial administration

• differences between Jammu Province and the Kashmir Valley

• diasporic identity in the United Kingdom, which is well-documented in sociological and migration studies.

These constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, satisfying WP:N and WP:GEOLAND requirements.

4. Reliability of Sources

All claims in the article are supported by reliable historical and academic sources (e.g., Drew, Lydekker, Adams, Snedden, Chatta, A. Shah). The page does not rely on self-published material, blogs, or unverifiable assertions. Where contemporary terminology varies, the article presents distinctions with appropriate citations.

5. Compliance with Contentious Topic Policies

My edits are confined to historical administration, geographic boundaries, ethnolinguistic identity, and diaspora studies. These do not fall under the restricted subtopics of (1) Indian military history or (2) caste/political-party issues. I am aware of the rules for contentious topics and will continue to adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CTOPICS.

6. Article Purpose

The purpose of the page is to:

• distinguish between Jammu Province and the Kashmir Valley, consistent with scholarly literature

• correct longstanding conflation between “Azad Kashmir” and historically separate Jammu districts

• provide neutral, sourced information for readers unfamiliar with the region’s administrative history.

This improves encyclopaedic accuracy and addresses a documented gap in coverage.

Based on the above, I oppose deletion and believe the article improves Wikipedia’s coverage of the region through reliably sourced, neutral, historically grounded information. RYasmeen12 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]