Category talk:Jammu and Kashmir

Intro
Let's just keep it simple. I've found that usually avoids a lot of problems, with category intros. We only need enough to identify it, here; detailed descriptions should be left to Wikipedia unless particular details impinge on category usage. --Pi zero (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kind of what I said in the last edit -- saves us from being politically incorrect, at the place where we should not even attempt to be. •–• 18:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it’s not as simple as we would wish. Acagastya has raised the issue of usage at Category talk:Kashmir, which is what I was trying to address. The name "Jammu and Kashmir" applies to the whole region (which we have labelled as Category:Kashmir), the Indian-administered state (this category), and the Pakistani-administered autonomous territory (Category:Azad Kashmir, fully known as "Azad Jammu and Kashmir", where the word "Azad" means "Free"). If we are not going to have some explanation of the dispute, i think we should be non-partisan in our approach to naming categories i.e. let’s use more neutral terms. And no, Acagastya, I think your approach is somewhat biased towards one side because you haven’t removed the same words from the other two categories. Let’s remove it from all of them or keep it in all of them but not a partial approach. Green Giant (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your point. The other two each have a sentence tacked onto the end of the intro, "It is part of the disputed Kashmir region."  If the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is, in its entirety, "part of the disputed Kashmir region", then we should have the same sentence here.  My initial impression is that it is.  Perhaps this question is part of what is so complicated/murky about Kashmir?  --Pi zero (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have not done it because I am working on an article, and this situation can not be dealt with just within minutes. •–• 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)