Requests for comment/Concerned about Urdu Wikipedia articles' truthiness and neutrality

The following request for comments is closed. Closed as inactive. No comments since September 2020. --Mykola 17:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

---

I auto translated some of the Urdu Wikipedia articles just for curiosity and read it, I shocked by the false and propaganda type content on that Urdu Wikipedia. I am posting some of these here, compare it with English Wikipedia (Which is most edited and trustworthy).

• Operation Dwarka English - Urdu

Urdu version claims two Indian officers and 13 salesmen were killed, (Which is completely false claim) The English Wikipedia claims no casualties.

• Kargil War English - Urdu

Urdu version claims No country has had a clear victory in this war. But the Pakistani army shot down three Indian fighter jets. In addition, the Indian army lost its balance in the Kargil sector and killed more than 700 soldiers, while English Wikipedia says: Decisive Indian victory.

The casualties figures on infobox of Urdu Wikipedia: killed 1363, while on English Wikipedia is 527. The figure of Urdu Wikipedia was manipulated since 2012 and no one corrected it.

• Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 English - Urdu

Urdu version claims Taking advantage of the Pakistani government's actions, Bengali separatists took advantage of the Mukti Bahini separatist movement in the eastern part of Pakistan, which later turned into a violent guerrilla force. India did not let this golden opportunity go to waste and showed its hypocrisy and took advantage of Pakistan's civil war and Mukti Bahini. it hardly seems neutral!!!

The whole second paragraph of Urdu article is manipulated false content. I can't quote whole para here.

Indian casualties on Urdu Wikipedia 7,843 killed while on English Wikipedia it is 2,500–3,843 killed.

• Kashmir English - Urdu Urdu version says: India and Pakistan want to plunder the resources of Kashmir like paradise and US imperialism is taking its interests from both the countries by keeping both the countries in a state of war.
• UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute English - Urdu

The UN resolution of 13 August 1948 stated that Pakistan would first withdraw its troops from Kashmir. Pakistan accepted the demand, but on March 14, 1950, the Security Council passed a resolution stating that the two countries would begin withdrawing troops at the same time. a false claims and propaganda type statements.

• Narendra Modi English - Urdu, Urdu Wikipedia says: He was heavily involved in the Gujarat riots and was held directly responsible. while English Wikipedia says His administration has been considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, or otherwise criticized for its handling of it
• Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 - Urdu, Urdu Wikipedia simply says: The bill is also being opposed because it is undemocratic and unconstitutional. a propaganda type statement.
• May 2014 Assam violence - Urdu, Urdu Wikipedia simply says: More than 40 people, mostly Muslims, were killed in the incident, while the English version says: the death toll reached 32 (contradictory Infobox of Urdu article copied from English claims same numbers). Also the Urdu article shows only and only one sided perspective. No mention of backgrounds and cause of incidents.
• Tarek Fatah Urdu, Urdu version says: Tariq Fateh also insults Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). False, propaganda statement.
• 2002 Gujarat riots English - Urdu, Urdu version says: The incident is said to have taken place after an argument between the occupants of the car at the station and a Muslim driver........"Similar, baseless allegations concerning Russia's intelligence have been made more than once. False, propaganda statement.
• Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 English - Urdu, Urdu version says: in which one side (India) crossed the international border and imposed war on the other side (Pakistan)......... The Indian casualties as per independent source: 9000, While the real figure as per English Wikipedia is 3,000. The figure on Urdu Wikipedia was initially correct, but someone changed it to 9,000 on 22 April, 2016 and no one corrected it till now.

The list can go endless if more articles investigated.

Although I stated few lines here, the most part of some articles are neutrality disputed and contains manipulated/one sided content. Majority of India-Pakistan related articles are neutrality disputed. I can't write/read Urdu language, So unable to edit those articles. I can only add neutrality dispute tags on it. But when I tried to put neutrality dispute tags someone reverted it blindly.

(All lines I quote here from Urdu Wikipedia are auto translated by google translator on 9 September, 2020.)

The most articles and content on Urdu Wikipedia is cherry-picked and shows only one sided narrative. The articles like "Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism" are avoided(may be intentionally) on Urdu Wikipedia. But if any article has in favor they exaggerate things by manipulating data, like in Operation Dwarka English.--Pravega (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pravega: Have you notified Urdu Wikipedia, per Requests for comment/Policy? --Rschen7754 05:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: I can't write Urdu, So I posted it here using google translate.--Pravega (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pravega: your claims regarding the neutrality & truthiness of urwiki is baseless. We try to keep all the page neutral. Regarding Operation Dwarka, infobox cleary mention that there were no casualties. Like other wikipedias, urwiki also tries to provide regional citations. I also checked your claims regarding other pages, those pages have citations about the claim mentioned in the paragraph. Editors on urwiki use native sources whether its about Narendra Modi or Kashmir. Regarding Citizenship (Amendment) Act you mentioned that the bill is also being opposed because it is undemocratic and unconstitutional. even english news says that. 1 2 Don't use google translate if you can't ready or write urdu. We even don't use google translation. Wikipedia or Everything doesn't work as per your or mine desire. I think, I had earlier reverted some of your edits on urwiki because you were adding the template of deletion of those pages which you have mentioned here. Thanks Hasan (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ulubatli Hasan: Same as urwiki I am concerned about the truthiness of your answer. I never added template of deletion, I added {{جانبدار}} template on three pages and you reverted all my edits. That was {{POV}} template of neutrality. I never wants Wikipedia to work as per my desire, I wants Wikipedia work as per guideline, and never be used to spread such propaganda.

• Regarding Operation Dwarka, two Indian officers and 13 salesmen were killed (This false claim repeats 3 times in article) is my concern not the infobox. The attack completely destroyed the runway is my concern.( There is no runway in Dwarka). The article show only and only one side narrative by cherry-picking things is my concern.
• Regarding Citizenship (Amendment) Act, it is much complex thing rather than just saying unconstitutional, I request you to read English version. Just saying it unconstitutional is cherry-picking.
• Native sources should be avoided if it make such false claims.--Pravega (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

, I think, first you need to stop spying other wikipedia when you don't know that language. Second, I've not edited any page you have mentioned here. Third, I'm also an Indian.

You said urdu version of May 2014 Assam violence lacks neutrality & truthiness. You should have read the first source cited on english wikipedia. that is not wroking read here archieve version. This page was translated by an editor in 2015. says "Twenty-two Muslims killed in sectarian attacks in Assam." next cite on enwiki says, "30 killed in 36 hours by Bodo militants in Assam, curfew imposed." urdu version of this page says "majority of them were Muslims." You should contact the editor who had translated those pages. enwiki has more than 6.1m pages while urwiki has only 157k pages. so basically, not possible to translate every page. You said that Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism are avoided(may be intentionally) on Urdu Wikipedia. if anyone will have interest then they would translate that page. BTW, that pages has been translated only in hindi. No other wikipedias have translated that. ask them for too. Hasan (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ulubatli Hasan: First, I continue spying; Second, I am not blaming you for this all (Although you reverted my edits blindly); Third, nationality of user has no importance here.--Pravega (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

By stating Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism, I am trying to show that urwiki cherry-picking things.--Pravega (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pravega: then why don't you learn urdu and start improving articles which lacks truthiness and neutrality. And translate whatever you want. Hasan (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ulubatli Hasan: Learning a new language takes years. I tried my best by putting the neutrality templates, Unfortunately you dislike that.--Pravega (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - The Kashmir page also has in its lead, "Pakistani Kashmir includes Poonch, Jammu, Gilgit and Baltistan". Which of these four parts is its capital in? If they can't even get such basic facts right, then neutrality is long gone out of the window.

By the way, if I search for Kashmir (کشمیر) on Google, it is the Farsi Wikipedia page that comes at the top. The Urdu Wikipedia page is nowhere to be found. There are some 5 or 6 million Kashmiris who can read and write Urdu. Apparently they don't care about the Urdu Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are saying that Kashmir page doesn't exist on Urdu Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you are wrong. By the way, I searched for Kashmir (کشمیر) on Google, it is the Urdu Wikipedia page that comes at the top. The Farsi Wikipedia page is nowhere to be found. first result is Kashmir region enwiki, Urwiki. Kashmir region includes Poonch, Jammu, Gilgit and Baltistan. Second result is Indian Jammu and Kashmir (state), enwiki, Urwiki. While searching I didn't find Pakistani Azad Ka Kashimir or Gilgit and Baltistan. Hasan (talk)

• "You are saying that Kashmir page doesn't exist on Urdu Wikipedia." What? I never said such a thing. I actually quoted from the Urdu Wikipedia page on Kashmir, which said the most ridiculous thing about Pakistani Kashmir! Here it is again:

Pakistani Kashmir includes Poonch, Jammu, Gilgit and Baltistan

and in Urdu source:

آج کل کشمیر کافی بڑے علاقے کو سمجھا جاتا ہے جس میں وادی کشمیر، جموں اور لداخ بھی شامل ہے۔ پاکستانی کشمیر کے علاقے پونچھ، جموں کے علاوہ گلگت اور بلتستان کے علاقے شامل ہیں۔ 1846 سے پہلے یہ آزاد ریاستیں تھیں۔ پاکستان بنتے وقت یہ علاقے کشمیر میں شامل تھے۔ وادی کشمیر پہاڑوں کے دامن میں کئی دریاؤں سے زرخیز ہونے والی سرزمین ہے۔ یہ اپنے قدرتی حسن کے باعث زمین پر جنت تصور کی جاتی ہے۔

Can you think of why any Wikipedia would make ridiculous statements like that?

• Citing the Google hits that you get doesn't prove anything, because Google would tune its results to your preferences, location etc. It is what the third-party readers get that would indicate Google's own ranking. The Farsi Wikipedia page has the much more substantive and factual description of Pakistani Kashmir, "The Pakistan-controlled region consists of Free Kashmir to the capital Muzaffarabad with an area of 5,619 square kilometers and the province of Golgotha Baltistan with an area of 72,496 square kilometers, ...[2]" and it has a citation as well. I find very few citations on Urdu Wikipedia pages. The Kashmir page has zero citations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Meta is not an appeals court for content disputes. Please resolve this on the Urdu Wikipedia itself. --Yair rand (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It can be if it can be proven that a wiki is systemically biased in a way that cannot be resolved internally. --Rschen7754 00:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • No, I don't think it can be. Every Wikipedia has biases, and every Wikipedia should do their best to be unbiased. Allowing an external group speaking a foreign language to overrule the local community in content decisions is likely to cause far more problems than it solves, and is contrary to the principle of community self-governance. So long as it's an open wiki that welcomes participation, it should be possible to be solved locally. So long as a language edition remains an open volunteer-based freely-licensed wiki encyclopedia that holds the major pillars as policy, it's doing more-or-less what we want them to do. Besides for which, what action would even be possible to take? Redesign the stewards group role, so that instead of their current very limited role, they're empowered to enforce their understanding of NPOV on various projects? When steward elections come around, should we make sure that candidates' qualifications include nuanced understandings of controversial topics like the India-Pakistan conflict? No. --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Meta is the place for discussions that are relevant not only to a single wiki but the entire ecosystem of WikiMedia. While I agree that the details must be judged by people who need not rely on google translate but have native language skills, I disagree that this should be a process exclusively internal to ur.wiki. If there is reason to believe that an entire wiki is having neutrality issues, that will rub off on the reputation of other, if not all, wikis, too. So I do believe that a discussion on Meta is warranted, especially because insiders' views might me lacking objectivity. Checking upon these things is not "spying": After all, the contents are publicly accessible online for everyone from everywhere (it's a wiki, not a top secret archive!). --Janwo (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that we shouldn't rely totally on google translator. But, I don't think that can be solved internally on ur.wiki, because the systematic bias exists. In many of article they don't cite references and run their own stories. Many article has manipulated data from years and no one corrected it (Of-course one sided data manipulation exists), Although the articles are high importance for most Urdu speaking/reading community (Like Kashmir, UN mediation of the Kashmir dispute, all Indo-Pak war). Most articles I mentioned here were translated from English Wiki and still so much difference exists, which shows systematic bias.--Pravega (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Pravega:, Have you ever seen Hindi Wikipedia? You have cherry picked few articles from Urdu Wikipedia and accused whole Urdu Wikipedia community even after knowing (probably) that there are very less active editors over there who work tirelessly for betterment of articles. This is not good. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 16:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @TheAafi: If you have any concern about Hindi Wikipedia, don't hesitate and post your issue on appropriate platform, I never edited Hindi Wikipedia, ur.wiki may have very few editors like many other wikis, but ur.wiki editors (not all) spread propaganda and I am against it.--Pravega (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)fc

Comment by Ameen Akbar

• Comment - Very sorry to say, all comments are not for improvement of Urdu Wikipedia, these all are to discredit it. All concern about Urdu Wiki must discuss on Urdu Wiki. Anyway, all objections are baseless، biased and for spreading propaganda. Pravega is well aware of fact that correction ratio of Urdu to English translation is not much better in Google Translate. At Urdu Wikipedia we are deleting all those pages which are translated 100% with Google Translator. User:Pravega did not see references in pages. Most of reference pages are in Urdu. These sources are considerd as authentic in English Wikipedia. User:Pravega added Template:POV on 3 pages but he did not posted his concern on any talk page on Urdu Wiki. He could posted all his research which is posted here. You can not object that there is not a certain page on Urdu Wikipedia. We have not many million pages which are created on English Wiki. We have not any policy that no one can create page on certain topic. User:Pravega must know that Urdu Wikipedia's mostly users are from India and Pakistan. I appreciate that this time mostly active user are from India. Urdu Wikipedia has admins from India. You all know better that managing neutrality in war related pages are very tough. We will try our best to maintain neutrality in concern pages with references, but keep in mind that Indian and Pakistani Authentic Reference Sources have different opinions / facts / coverage in war related articles / news etc. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @امین اکبر: There are many reasons for choosing meta for this issue, no-one give any attention to my concern if I posted it on ur.wiki, even here no-one from ur.wiki trying to understand issue, which is the main reason. For a while let's believe that google translator is faulty completely, then what about number manipulation?? Now I can see a reference you added recently on Operation Dwarka Urdu page, Anyway thank you for your edit, you mention These sources are considerd as authentic in English Wikipedia. Really?? Then try to add the claim of that page on English Wikipedia. If Google transalator is not wrong this time, the article mention We are grateful to the Pakistan Navy's Public Relations Department for preparing this article... due to this I don't think this reference should be cited on Wikipedia. Forget about neutrality of ur.wiki war related pages, basic facts are wrong.--Pravega (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pravega Sorry to change my comment into heading. It was little difficult to search. This is childish excuse that "no-one give any attention to my concern if I posted it on ur.wiki". I am here, other Urdu wiki community members are here just for your concern. I am not commenting other page on Requests for comment, because they are not my concern. Jang News, Express News, Dawn News from Pakistan are considered authentic sources. Hindustan Times, Time Of India and many more news outlet are considered authentic sources. You and all others are well aware that in conflict coverages, Pakistani and Indian sources did not report same figures. We can not force anyone to consider only Indian or Pakistani or both countries coverage while editing page. Why you dont research Indian Personalies like poets, soldier, politicians pages to check about Urdu Wikipedia articles' truthiness and neutrality? You have picked just 9 pages from 157,311 and now you want to prove whole Urdu Wiki comminuity biased? Some facts for you and all others who are reading this page. Pakistan did not accept Isreal. Both countries relations are not even normal. Pakistani passport is not valid for Isreal. Look at this page, We have completed an editathon namely "Messenger of Peace" on Urdu Wikipedia and Hebrew Wikipedia. Look Here we participated in Wikipedia Asian Month. Most of pages created are on Indian Topic, Please check if there is any descripency? Click Here to check Tiger editathons in 2018. Pakistani and Indian users created 696 pages on Indian Topics. Check for any problem? Click here to see page of Asian Month 2018. Pakistani and Indian Users created 409 pages. Mostly on Indian Topic. Please find any issue? In Asian Month 2019 Pakistani and Indian User created 533 pages, mostly on Indian Topic. Pease see if there is any issue? See Project Tiger 2.0 Urdu fountain page. Here Pakistani and Indian user created 1377 pages, mostly on Indian Topics. See if there is any problem? If anyone go through these fact, he could not blame about Urdu Wikipedia articles' truthiness and neutrality. Confilct related pages are problem of all wikis. We did not reverted any user's edit due to reference is from Indian news source or Pakistani news source. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Arif

• Comment Pravega, Your concerns are totally baseless and biased.--Arif80s (talk) 07:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Abbas Dhothar

@Pravega:, I don't know why you are so worried about only Urdu which you can neither read nor write. If you want neutrality on Wikipedia, first neutralize biased content in the languages you can read and write. Your much interest in defaming Urdu shows that you are working on a particular agenda which is based only on prejudice and malice. By doing this propaganda, you only want to defame Urdu wiki. In response, we can also question Hindi wiki and Gujarati wiki neutrality , but we are not inferior like you and We don't want to open the Pandora box of prejudice. If you have any issue with UrduWiki, you should talk to the administrators of UrduWiki to resolve it, but you started accusing UrduWiki for propaganda material(Which is based on a complete lie). This indicates that you only want to create problems on Wikipedia۔Which is an obstacle to the development of Wikipedia۔ Your attitude towards Urdu is because of your enmity and hostility with Urdu (Of course you think that Urdu is the language of Pakistan but it is also an Indian language and the language of Muslims as well as millions of Hindus.) So leave enmity with Urdu because languages belong to everyone, they have no religion۔ --Abbas dhothar (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality is universal and should be pursued everywhere unconditionally. Seeking neutrality is not "creating problems"; it is fixing them. And if a particular POV introduces balance into an article, then that is not something to complain about. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by USaamo

• Comment I think this is not much a problem as per the complainant is saying. There are two things in it and I believe it applies generally to all Wikipedias including English. First the number of Wikipedians from on that very edition and second the sources available in that language. On Urdu Wikipedia most of the editors are from Pakistan and is written from the sources in Urdu. I believe similar will be the story on Wikipedias of Indian languages. Even for English Wikipedia until Pakistani Wikipedians came, the articles about South Asia were highly biased towards India and even now same is the case since Indian editors outnumber Pakistani editors and easily push Indian POV to the articles. So if it really is a problem then it is to an extent problem with whole Wikipedia since Wikipedia goes for consensus most of the time. USaamo (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by TheAafi

• Comment I am very sorry Pravega for your frustration. You tried raising the issue on Teahouse of English Wikipedia, "alright, you understood (via Google translator) that these few pages have POV issues, you didn't raised your issue on any forum of Urdu Wikipedia, the way you did on English Wikipedia. You were told to contact someone at Urdu Wikipedia, but sadly you didn't. You were also directed to raise the issue on Urdu Wiki embassy, and you preferred meta over it. Alright. You didn't gave Urdu Wikipedia forums a chance to listen to your query. You posted the query on Urdu Wikipedia right after you "discredited" it on meta. What a lovely game man! No Wikipedia is free from "non-neutral" articles and it takes time and effort to address such issues. We fight such issues on English Wikipedia easily because we have more editors which is not the case with Urdu or Hindi Wikipedia. I'm not discrediting Hindi Wikipedia but such issues are there as well, maybe with articles you don't like and you don't care about them. I thank the sincere editors of all Wikipedias who work tirelessly in reverting vandalism. Abbas dhothar rightly advised you that "Why you are so worried about only Urdu which you can neither read nor write. If you want neutrality on Wikipedia, first neutralize biased content in the languages you can read and write". But sadly you are very new to even "Hindi Wikipedia", along with having almost no constructive edits on English Wikipedia as well. Looks like you managed some edits on English Wikipedia, and you should keep adding more constructive edits there. Leave Urdu Wikipedia to those sincere Urdu Wikipedia editors of India and Pakistan who tirelessly improve it, "just because you are ignorant of Urdu language, you should remain silent about Urdu". Once you expertise the language, you are welcome to Urdu Wikipedia. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 03:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment/Reply/Suggestion by Pravega

Dear ur.wiki editors. @TheAafi:, @USaamo:, @Abbas dhothar:, @Arif80s:, @امین اکبر:, @Ulubatli Hasan:

I am not going to reply each and every comment where you ping me, few are off-topic and few include personal attacks.

• My major concern with ur.wiki is Truthiness, Neutrality comes next.
• No one would have supported me if I had posted this on ur.wiki. Even here no one from ur.wiki trying to understand concern and constantly denying issue.
• Indo-Pak war articles are very high importance article for South Asia region, It must be free from false facts, data manipulation and propaganda statements in any language wikis. Except ur.wiki, Hindi and Gujarati articles are highly sourced and as neutral as en.wiki. (Don't believe me!! check yourself using translator)

My suggestion

Delete all of these ur.wiki articles I mentioned above, The content of those are complete garbage. Meanwhile you can neutralize/edit the en.wiki articles if you believe en.wiki articles have Indian POV or any other issue.(I am sure you all know English language very well). Then organize a editathon and translate these few articles from en.wiki. Please don't add any additional content other than en.wiki. I believe the en.wiki is highly neutral on this particular topics. Because majority of en.wiki citation are independent/scholarly or international.--Pravega (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Pravega, please don't lie about Hindi Wikipedia as completely neutral and highly sourced. Likewise any other Wikipedia it has problems. I recall reading Ram Punyani's Hindi Wiki article, it was written there that "he is a pig". Is that neutral? Anyways that is gone now (removed by some IP editor) but it remained there for a long time. You say that problematic articles should be completely deleted from Urdu Wiki, but on other Wikis such articles should be edited and improved. You said, "Delete all of these ur.wiki articles I mentioned above, The content of those are complete garbage. Meanwhile you can neutralize/edit the en.wiki articles if you believe en.wiki articles have Indian POV or any other issue." You should be unbiased about all Wikis, and say same for all.The reply to it is, on all Wikis we fight POV issues - if Hindi Wikipedia or English Wikipedia can tolerate and allow editors to improve such articles, why you are getting problems from Urdu Wikipedia. Let the sincere Wikipedians improve Wikipedia and you carry on with your filthy propaganda against Urdu Wikipedia. Out of so much articles on Urdu Wikipedia, you cherry picked "few' to drive your propaganda. - ─ The Aafī (^talk) 11:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi All, I suggest to stop messaging here as there is no use to talk on pointless issues. We are not going to delete any articles until we find it violating Policies and guidelines, Still if one has any concern then I suggest to come to our Diwan e Aam and support with your valuable suggestions, feedback or complaint. One thing I want to confirm as an Urdu Wikipedian that we do not discriminate or bias towards or against any topic. We try our best to follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines maintaining truthiness and neutrality.

Let me also clarify that we d not hesitate to improve our articles and your claim is totally baseless. Giving Hi and En wikis clean chit and targeting Urdu Wikipedia exclusively is condemnable and I take as discouraging our editors. We have users having 6, 7,8 and 9+ years to exp with the wiki and some of them have 1 lakh plus edits in their account. Someone with two or three lines google translation can not question their effort in maintaining and truthiness and neutrality in such a way.

To sum up, I sincerely appreciate to bring this point and we already started checking these articles and will fix them. But please do not blame us to be biased. One can can with lots of such examples from many other wikis and it does not mean that all are biased. If there is a mistake then it should be taken as human error and nothing else. I hope you will find my message in a positive way. Thanks again. Faismeen (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Pravega, your suggestions are just hilarious, Wikipedia cannot go as per your wishes. A user below has opened up about your false claim of Indian languages Wikipedias to be highly neutral and sourced. Before raising doubts on Urdu Wikipedia, go fix the bias of Indian languages Wikipedias first. USaamo (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Mar4d

I will readily admit that I'm not particularly active on the Urdu Wikipedia, but I find Yair rand's comments to be of most merit. Content disputes (or biases) are a universal issue and not confined to any one particular version of our online encyclopaedia. Let me give a very simple example, but first a note on the objection raised by Kautilya3 in his comment here. I have read (and re-read) the passage in question and am still at a struggle to understand what is factually "ridiculous" in the quoted material. Here is my verbatim translation of the second part Kautilya3 posted in Urdu, with some marginal variation more or less:

In modern times, Kashmir encompasses a much wider region which includes the Valley of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. Pakistani Kashmir includes the Poonch, Jammu as well as Gilgit and Baltistan regions. Prior to 1846, these comprised independent states. At the time of Pakistan's formation, these regions were part of the state of Kashmir. The Valley of Kashmir is a land known for its mountains and many rivers. Due to its natural beauty, it is also referred to as "heaven on earth".

Note the usage of the word علاقے (allaqay) for the parts comprising Pakistani Kashmir, which roughly translates to "regions". Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of Kashmir would know that Poonch is one of the districts in Azad Kashmir (i.e. "Pakistani Kashmir"). Perhaps Kautilya3 mistook it for the Indian-administered Poonch district, which would explain his confusion. Likewise, it is also well known that what is currently Azad Kashmir was historically and geographically a part of the wider Jammu region. "Kashmir" in archaic usage as a matter of fact only referred to the Valley, not the other regions which were later absorbed into the princely state. It's no surprise that the official name of Azad Kashmir is Azad Jammu and Kashmir, or the fact that the English Wikipedia's own entry on Pakistani Kashmir states the very obvious straight out of Snedden's book: Muslims in Western Jammu province (current day Azad Kashmir) and the Frontier Districts Province (current day Gilgit-Baltistan) had wanted to join Pakistan.. Surely, there can also be no dispute that Gilgit and Baltistan are both parts of the Pakistani-administered Kashmir region?! In my opinion, at most, the passage could have been edited in a wholesome manner to include a reference to all of the modern districts comprising Pakistani Kashmir.

Analysis of Hindi Wikipedia articles on Pakistani Kashmir

As far as making fictional claims is concerned, then it would appear that the Hindi Wikipedia would take both the cake and the biscuit. Here, the Hindi entry on Azad Kashmir assigns it a unique name ("North-West Kashmir"). According to this article, "north-west Kashmir" is "officially one of the administrative divisions of North-West Kashmir India. It is a part of Indian-administered Kashmir."

That is not all. Here, the Hindi entry for Gilgit-Baltistan (the other region of Pakistani Kashmir) even has its own overlay map of Indian-administered Kashmir. The infobox notes the country of subdivision as "India" with the Indian flag and seal prominently displayed atop. And to add the cherry (fiction) on top (fact?), it's lead says the most ridiculous thing which should explain the quality of pages in general:

Gilgit-Baltistan is an autonomous region formerly known as Northern Territory or Shumali Territory (شمالی علاقہ جات, Shumali Territory). This is India's northernmost political unit. Its borders are from Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in the west, Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor in the north, China's Xinjiang Province in the northeast, the Indian Jammu and Kashmir Center in the south and southeast.

If one clicks on the page for Gilgit, the capital of Gilgit-Baltistan, here is what the lead of the Hindi entry claims:

Gilgit is the capital and largest city of the Gilgit-Balistan region of Ladakh, India.

I imagine these to be the tip of the iceberg. But clearly if that is the standard of content, then suffice to say, the Urdu Wikipedia is light years ahead of Hindi Wikipedia in both content and quality. Mar4d (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mar4d, thanks for joining. Please note that I posed question: which of those parts is the Pakistani Kashmir's capital in? You haven't bothered to answer that.

Also, when you are comparing with Hindi Wikipedia, why did you pick Gilgit-Baltistan? Why not the page on Kashmir? Shouldn't you be comparing the like with the like?

If you find sufficient issues with the Hindi Wikipedia, please feel free to open a thread on it. But you shouldn't be using that to deflect attention from what is being debated here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@@Kautilya3: Sorry, I'm going to have to disagree. We have to take a holistic view of things. I look forward to your explanation of why you think the Gilgit-Baltistan example shouldn't be compared, as it is indeed part of the Kashmir dispute articles. My point is still valid regarding the outstanding POV issues I mentioned above, which hasn't been rectified. Rather than making it an Urdu-Hindi-Wikipedia problem, the root of the issue should be identified across the board. It is contingent upon the editors of an encylopaedia as to how those issues are dealt with. Like I mentioned, if there are issues with Urdu content (which there may well be), the Hindi counterpart is doing an outstanding job at outshining its counterpart. Remaining partially blindsided or taking a head-under-sand approach will not take the discussion anywhere. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion on a positive note by an Urdu Wikipedia admin

Dear Pravega, thank you for raising an important issue concerning the veracity of Urdu Wikipedia articles. I, as one of the admins, would like to assure you that we've always been proactive on a number of editing issues such as spelling, language, grammar, internal links, infoboxes, navigation boxes, templates, PoVs, exaggerated salutations, etc. We will definitely add quality check for war-related articles too to this and think of fine-tuning the content to the NPOV, either by following the English Wikipedia version or incorporating multiple views - views prevalent in each country concerned as well as international opinions as well. These changes will require deliberations with other team members. As regards to the very basic nature of Urdu Wikipedia, I advice you to please go through this write-up - it sums up many, if not all, of the positive developments which took place on Urdu Wikipedia. I guess you are aware of Hindi. If you can learn Urdu and help us in editing these articles, then I will welcome your supportive efforts in this direction. I've myself tried to learn Hindi and have contributed content on this language Wikipedia as well, even though the language is not taught in our schools. In any case, I'm sure the cited write-up will convince you of our dedicated efforts and willingness for a more informative and truthful edition of Wikipedia. --— Hammad (Talk!) 04:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hammad, thank you for your positive response and for highlighting the steps you are taking. POV edits and vandalism are a problem for us at English Wikipedia as well. It take a lot of effort to counter them. If you can sensitise the experienced editors to watch the kind of pages that have been raised here, especially the pages at the India-Pakistan interface, that will help. (By the way the problem with the Kashmir page that I mentioned above can be fixed by changing "Pakistani Kashmir" in the second sentence to "Kashmir".) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)