The language to be toned down to become neutral and suitable for encyclopedia. Should I do this? Or, some one would like to do? --Bhadani 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and do it. Also please remove the part that there has been Pakistan-supported terrorism. I am sure there are Indian and Chinese pressure groups as well. -- Eptalon 13:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Map issues[change source]
Is is surely good to have a map of India that shows the disputes India has with other states; I am however not sure if their disputes with Nepal (which i didn't even know about) or their dispute with China (Arunanchal Pradesh, all to the West) is really related to Kashmir here); is there a better map (that shows more than what is shown by the color map just above it)? --Eptalon (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Removal of Occupied[change source]
I removed most occurences of the term occupied as being non-neutral and balanced the usage of "control" and "administer" so the terms are not used to show a specific POV ('we just administer our region, they control theirs') The entire spread of articles on the region follows one side or the others on who is occupying, controlling or administering which areas. Occupied is always only used to just push one side of the issue while controlled or administered can be used both ways, as long as they are balanced - ie, always use control or always use administer, not both to show different sides of the dispute.
Occupied should only be used to specifically point out how a side feels - "Pakistan calls it Occupied Kashmir" is perfectly fine, but calling it Occupied Kashmir without reference to the term being used by them is right out. --Creol(talk) 08:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)