Talk:Chenab Valley

Last Neutral Version: here

Present version: here

---

The last neutral version of the "Chenab Valley" Wikipedia article described the valley as follows: "The Chenab Valley is a river valley formed by the Chenab River. The term is also used collectively for Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban districts of Jammu Division in the Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. These districts were formerly part of a single district, called Doda." This description had numerous independent and reliable citations supporting that it is a river valley as per research articles and that the term is collectively used for Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban districts of Jammu and Kashmir.

However, the present version of the article has been significantly altered by a user named UnpetitproleX, resulting in a non-neutral point of view. The current lead section reads: "Chenab Valley is a loosely-defined controversial term sometimes used to refer to parts of the Jammu Division in Jammu and Kashmir, India. The term is used to refer to the present-day districts of Doda, Kishtwar, Ramban, and, at times, Reasi and parts of Udhampur and Kathua. The first three districts used to be part of a single former district called Doda, which was created in 1948 out of the eastern parts of Udhampur district of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, and are sometimes collectively referred to as the Doda belt. The term is seen to be aimed at a communal break-up of the Jammu Division and iteration of Kashmiri Muslim irredentism."

The current version introduces several contentious claims: 1. It describes the term "Chenab Valley" as "loosely defined" and "controversial," which lacks basis. 2. It extends the term to include parts of Reasi, Udhampur, and Kathua, despite independent citations not supporting the inclusion of Udhampur and Kathua. 3. It asserts that the term is "aimed at a communal break-up of the Jammu Division," which appears to be based on opinion articles rather than objective research.

In the neutral version, the origin of the term was linked to Erik Norin's 1924 research, which defined the geography of Chenab Valley. This version included a geology infobox and important information about the valley and its rivers. These references and information were removed by UnpetitproleX, confining the term to a specific POV.

The significant and controversial edits made by this user should be reverted. A thorough discussion of each contentious change should be initiated on the article's talk page.Yousuf Soz (talk) Yousuf Soz (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The original "neutral" version, which was written in that form in a major copyedit by me here used three (pre-existing) references: two Greater Kashmir news reports and one Frontline magazine article. The Frontline article which came closest to being a good WP:RS out of the three, actually does not even mention "Chenab Valley" at all, let alone to mean what it was being cited for.

The current version, referred to as "POV" by you, actually cites three scholarly sources, including a 2023 work published by Cambridge University Press, a 2019 work published by Sage Publishing, and a 2006 one by Brookings Institution Press. I haven't yet finished editing this page, I'm soon going to add another work (a T&F published article by AA Wani) to the lead, and am also looking through other available academic sources for a better history section. Please refer to WP:BESTSOURCES: the sources cited by me are the best possible sources available out there for the term's usage as referred to in this article. If you have any other sources, present them.

WP:NPOV states we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Published by reliable sources, not whatever we may think is neutral. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources such as this, this and this, being held up as "evidence" of the political usage of the term (which is the subject of our article) is gross misrepresentation of them. These sources refer to the "Chenab valley" (with the uncapitalized 'v') in a purely geomorphological sense, from Lahaul to Reasi (not the 3 "Doda-belt" districts).

Erik Norin, in his 1926 article, is mainly concerned with glaciations "at the southern side of the watershed of the Great Himalaya range, for example in the valley system of the Chenab." He says "The part of the drainage area of the Chenab treated in this paper comprises the main valley and its tributaries between Riasi and Kishtwar and the lower course of the Maru-Warwan valley, which connects the section with the main watershed (Fig. I)." The Figure is a map, which definitely does not correspond to the three present-day districts of our article, i.e. the so-called "Doda belt." But this has been used to add the following as "origin" of the term: "The term was first reportedly introduced by Erik Norin in a 1926 journal article, and has since been embraced by residents and activists to emphasize the region’s distinct cultural and geographical identity." This is the extent of misrepresentation.

Patil et. al. (2020), which studies landslides around the Chenab river and a few of its tributaries says that "For landslide studies, the area was selected in the part of the Chenab valley, which is extended in five districts, viz. Chamba (HP), Doda, Kargil, Kishtwar and Udhampur (J&K)." referring to the watershed of the Chenab river in Chamba, Kishtwar, Doda and Udhampur. It does not refer to the political and cultural usage of the wikipedia article. The article further states that "Kishtwar is the major urban settlement near to Chenab valley and is also a district headquarter." Notice that it says Kishtwar is near to Chenab valley (the Kishtwar town is located around 2 km east of the left bank of the Chenab river). It also has maps, labelled 'Figure 1', and 'Figures 7–21' showing what is referred to as 'Chenab valley' which do not correspond to the 3 districts of the "Doda-belt". The article is not acknowledging the so-called "Chenab Valley" as a cultural or political unit at all.

Dey et. al. (2023) is concerned with glaciation in the 'Upper Chenab valley' by which it means the course of the Chenab river in Lahaul Spiti, Chamba and Kishtwar. Not the political usage referred to in our wikipedia article, definitely not the three "Doda-belt" districts.

Both of these above articles were dumped in the bibliography section, without actual reference to them in the article at all. I'm removing them both. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Political op-eds are not more reliable that scholarly sources. They are "rarely reliable for statements of fact" according to wikipedia content guidelines. This op-ed by a little known local journalist, this poorly researched election analysis or its other exact copy are therefore very unlikely to be used over books written by leading scholars and published by Cambridge University Press, Brookings Institution Press, and SAGE. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Also removing from the article all works by repeat sock User:ANZER.AYOUB that he published through his outlet The Chenab Times. Those are definitely not reliable due to his incessant socking and use of his self-published work. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User ImrannGhazi has reverted the article to a version more than an year old, as written heavily by now-blocked repeat sockpuppet-farm editor User:ANZER.AYOUB, which he wrote using low quality, misrepresented, and self-published sources (some of these issues are detailed in the sections above). That version contains a large amount of WP:OR and even terms invented by Anzer Ayoub himself. That version was re-written by me using scholarly and reliable sources, and I edit the article from time to time to eliminate bad sourcing from Anzer's version (undoing Anzer's disruptive editing and OR is not easy because of the sheer large scale of it, he has even resorted to socking on other wiki projects, where he has also been banned; at one point, he made a sock account to impersonate me, something he has also done to other editors who undo his disruption across wikipedia projects). Anzer Ayoub has regularly used sockpuppets to restore his version of this article. ImrannGhazi has resorted to edit warring to restore the low quality OR version of Anzer Ayoub. @Kautilya3: please take a look. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There are too many confusing edits here. Can you add diffs or links to versions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: This was the version as written primarily by User:ANZER.AYOUB socks User:TheChunky, User:GAGIWOR, User:Sahil Qazi, User:ساحل قاضی and others (all blocked) using WP:OR, WP:HOAX and low-quality sources, before I began re-writing it using the best available sources. This is the version (also current) that User:ImrannGhazi keeps reverting the article to, which is mostly a copy of the sock OR version. This is my version. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Also adding, even in my version, the OR added by Anzer Ayoub socks is still being undone (though it is still infinitely more compliant with WP:RS than the sock version). I plan on re-writing the history section, with the demands for hill council section merged into it, using WP:HISTRS after I am done editing elsewhere (I am currently rewriting Chandigarh's history section using scholarly history sources). UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Content written by banned socks can be reinstated by editors in good standing. When they do so, they take responsibility for the content. I suppose ImrannGhazi undertands that. He will need to address any issues you raise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I've raised plenty, they're above and he can address them there. Until then I have reinstated the WP:RS compliant version. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The version is not WP:RS compliant, it overrepresents some sources and their statements while underrepresenting others EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Not all sources are of the same level or reliability or, indeed, usable. Op-eds for instance are "rarely reliable for statements of fact." Scholarly sources on the other hand, are "usually the most reliable sources." This is wikipedia guideline, not my own opinion, I should note. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

No one said anything about op-eds being reliable. I merely said that reliable sources go against your version of the article EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what is his beef with Anzer ayub but this user UnpetitproleX's version ignores various facts. He says "Chenab Valley" is a loosely contentious term when it's a proper term used by official govt records like Metrology department and projects like "Chenab Valley Power Projects", there's a dedicated Police Zone, Forest zone, R&B Chenab Zone. My version of this page has citation and reference with every claim. Check "Name" section... There's proper reference of this term "Chenab Valley". ImrannGhazi (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It's based on scholarly books published by reputed university presses. Please present your sources, and detest from edit warring. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There are three references in your version's "name" section. Anzer Ayoub's op-ed is not RS. Norin (1926) and Behera (2006) are both misrepresented in your version, i.e. they are used to support content that they actually do not support themselves. That is a serious disruption. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Chenab Valley Power Projects is a company with its HQ in Jammu that has built and operates two dam projects on the Chenab river in district Kishtwar. R&B Chenab Zone is a public works department, headquartered in Batote, for the districts of Udhampur, Ramban, Doda and Kishtwar. What exactly ties these two point to the disputed socio-political usage of your version? UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Aaand he has gone right back to edit warring without addressing any issues at all. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Aand I'll say this again. Every section of my page has reference/citation. Why are you so triggered?? Who are you to decide what sources are accepted and what sources are rejected?? Read the article again. ImrannGhazi (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You need to read WP:RS, WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:SCHOLARLY, WP:HISTRS, WP:NEWSOPED etc. and get an idea of what are considered acceptable sources. Until then, please do not disruptively keep adding back low quality and misrepresented sources. @Kautilya3: I have now lost count of how many times this editor has misrepresented sources. How many times is the acceptable limit, after being warned about the misrepresentation? UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

The version of the article you keep reverting to is vastly WP:UNDUE. It takes the viewpoints and grudges of certain actors and potrays them as the mainstream scholarly consensus, which in fact, it is not. Chenab Valley being simply that, a valley, is not disputed by reliable sources. Calling it a form of Islamic Irredentism is ridiculous EarthDude (wanna talk?) 05:15, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It is bsed on scholarly sources. Chenab river flows through Jammu and Himchal Pradesh, throgh districts Lahaul-Spiti, Chamba, Kishtwar, Doda, Ramban, Resi and Jammu, of course the term has been used in that geomorphological meaning for all these areas from Lahaul to Jammu (see section above). "Chenab Valley" when used in a socio-political sense to refer specifically to some areas of the Jammu division only (i.e. the subject of this article) is not singularly or well-defined by RS, and what's more is this socio-political usage is highly disputed as attested in the CUP published book. I will make an WP:LTA report for long time pov-pusher sock-farm master ANZER.AYOUB when I find the time. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe the current version of the article is an extreme violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The older version should be restored EarthDude (wanna talk?) 04:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

What we may believe personally is of little import unless we can present WP:RS (of same quality) that dispute the scholarly WP:RS already present on the article. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

ImrannGhazi, since the old editors were socks, this edit counts as your contribution. All edits are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. So you are required to discuss the edit and make an effort to arrive at consensus. WP:Edit warring will get you blocked. You have been already alerted to the Contentious Topics regime. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: the editor has now created a WP:POVFORK at "Chenab Region" by reinstating all disputed content in a new page to evade page protection here. I have converted it to a redirect, but I doubt that will stop the editor's persistent disruption. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I notice that you have made it a redirect. If he persists in doing this, you can report at WP:ANI. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

• Came here from INB. UnpetitproleX your version of the article fails WP:LEAD. Wholesale reverting is a disruptive especially when others have taken the responsibility for the sock edits. You claim that there is misrepresentation but you fail to provide any evidence , I am restoring the stable version before your edit warring here. Earthdude is correct that you are overstating the concerns of some political actors to push a view endorsed by Hindutva party BJP. Do not revert it unless you have the consensus to impose your version against the long standing stable version. Orientls (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  You are doing a classic WP:IDHT and making accusations against me based on that. Talk:Chenab Valley#Misrepresentation of sources related to geomorphology specifically talks about the source misrepresentation with all the evidence. You are also calling "stable" a version that has not remained on the article for more than a year. You also removed Kumar (2023), a scholarly source which specifically talks about multiple actors and not just BJP disputing the term. I doubt you have read any of the other sources either, otherwise you would not have reinstated the multiple misrepresented sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero consensus for your POV version. For half a decade this article has remained in the state , it was only until your disputed changes that were reverted several times last year that have inserted these POV claims into the lead of the article. Instead of discussing and gaining consensus you have always warred to launder them in. This won't work.

Instead of making false accusations and aspersions against me, you should prove how your version is not pushing a POV and how it doesn't violate WP:LEAD. Orientls (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As you have noted, that version was WP:STABLE; it also contains less WP:OR and WP:HOAX, so I have restored that half-decade old WP:STABLE version. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As for the rest, I will add a detailed breakdown of what the highest quality sources have to say about the term and usage in a new section below. If you are here to improve the article in good faith, I will hope you will engage with the sources and be willing to discuss all issues that I raise, and are not just here to do a drive-by revert. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Your version of the article significantly violates WP:NPOV. To claim that this was merely a sock creation and to then use that as a pretense to make extremely contentious changes, as you have, by having the article primarily focus on the political usage of the term by some actors, and ignoring at large the region being a legitimate geographical entity is ridiculous EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:04, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources that use it to refer to a geographic entity do so for the entire span of the river in the Himalayas, from Lahaul to Akhnoor. Not the specific POV usage being promoted by Anzer Ayoub. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Which so called vast majority of source use it for Lahaul to Akhnoor except BJP & it's supporters? The term Chenab Valley is used by in Jammu & Kashmir to describe the districts of Doda, Kishtwar, Ramban and some parts of Reasi district. It is not some made up term but a geographical region duly recognised & called by this name "Chenab Valley" by all political parties of J&K except BJP (they call it erstwhile doda district for reasons best known to them) as well as the local residents of that region. Your version ignores all neutral facts and promotes the ideology and facts propagated by BJP & it's supporters. ImrannGhazi (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I will adding those scholarly sources below soon. Definitely not "BJP and its supporters." UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

UnpetitproleX are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP: POINT now. I only listed the 2020 version to show how lead has been relatively stable until July of 2024 (when you modified it to your POV version), it seems you misunderstood my post and have disruptively restored the 2020 version to prove a point, which has literally no content at all. You must self-revert now. Orientls (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I have only restored the version that you yourself stated above was half-decade WP:STABLE, which I agree. It has less content because it does not have the WP:HOAX and POV WP:NEWSOPEDs added to it by User:ANZER.AYOUB and his multiple socks. If an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, can determine which version is STABLE between the half-decade old and the mostly SOCK created one, I have no issues with that. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you refusing to read my clarification, and continuing to misrepresent my earlier comment? Admins have no say over content disputes in any case. You still haven't self reverted despite undoing half a decade of additions to the article. Orientls (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Orientls, EarthDude

This user UnpetitproleX is clearly imposing his own POV in this article which is based on the ideology of a political party. He has even added a "sources" section below in which he has added only biased scholars like Prof Hari Om (a right wing scholar who's known for his Anti Muslim & Anti Kashmir views). He's clearly imposing his POV in this article favouring a particular political party. Biased sources shouldn't accepted. If his sources are valid then I've also added a sources section below in favour of this term "Chenab Valley". A neutral page/article should be accepted rather than an year old page with one sided POV. ImrannGhazi (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @EarthDude, @Orientls,@ImrannGhazi. I have reviewed the sources added by @UnpetitproleX. You can check here. Romit Parihar (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC) — Romit Parihar (talk · contribs) is a blocked suspected sock puppet of ANZER.AYOUB (talk · contribs). UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

User:ImrannGhazi, you have added a list of fake made-up sources by made up scholars likely generated by AI. Textbook definition WP:HOAX. Adding an AI-generated list of fake sources is clear and serious WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

User:UnpetitproleX I have removed the sources from talk page but that doesn't mean your POV is right on the topic. This user is pushing the POV of particular political party. He's adding only biased sources which favours his POV. There are various neutral sources already in original version of that article but this user keeps editing the whole article to favour the ideology of a particular political party which is very distrubing. There must be a neutral article and not an year old page favouring the ideology of a particular political party and ignoring the others. ImrannGhazi (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Biased sources written by scholars and long-standing field experts and published by reputed academic and university presses (such as CUP, Routledge, Bloomsbury etc.)? UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

According to WP:SOURCETYPES, scholarly sources (academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks) are "the most reliable sources." Below is how the highest quality scholarly sources (secondary scholarship publisher by the most reputable academic publishers and university presses) treat the subject.

Discussion

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Romit Parihar (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*Comment: I came across this talk page discussion recently and found it compelling—one side seems to push a BJP-aligned narrative, framing "Chenab Valley" as a purely communal term to divide Jammu, while the other strives for a balanced article. As someone who doesn’t edit Wikipedia that much but reads it for knowledge, I’ve noticed some articles get skewed by selective interpretations. I have the right to comment as a reader and editor, especially after analyzing the sources cited by User:UnpetitproleX under "Secondary scholarly sources" per WP:SOURCETYPES, which prioritizes scholarly works. These sources highlight the political contention around "Chenab Valley" but don’t negate its historical and geographical roots, which I’ll address below, drawing on a broader understanding of the region’s context. Starting with Navnita Chadha Behera’s Demystifying Kashmir (2006), it discusses demands for a "Chenab Valley Hill Council" as part of autonomy proposals critics viewed as reinforcing communal Hindu-Muslim fault lines (pp. 130–131, 136–138). Her earlier work, State, Identity, and Violence: Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh (2000), critiques the top-down push for Doda’s provincial status as "Chenab Valley" by a few National Conference Muslim MLAs, noting it lacked broad support (p. 296). However, these points target the 1990s political proposals, not the term’s existence. A review by Robert Wirsing flags Demystifying Kashmir for pro-India bias and exaggerated militancy stats, while Sumit Ganguly calls it unoriginal, Shalendra Sharma notes vague conclusions, and Teresita Schaffer suggests more focus on cooperation. This suggests Behera’s take is one angle, not definitive—using it to dismiss "Chenab Valley" entirely is misleading. Vikas Kumar’s Numbers as Political Allies: The Census in Jammu and Kashmir (2023) doesn’t explicitly label "Chenab Valley" as controversial or communal. Kumar treats it as a geographical and socio-political entity, analyzing census data and ethno-regional dynamics (pp. 291–292, 322). He notes scholars and politicians like Ghulam Nabi Azad (2022) and Hari Om (2021) questioning its use for the former Doda district, suggesting Akhnoor or lower Reasi as better fits, and cites critics (Parveen Swami, Rekha Chowdhary, Balraj Puri) on the National Conference’s autonomy plans as communally divisive. Yet, this critiques the political usage, not the term’s historical basis—Kumar doesn’t reject "Chenab Valley" as a valid descriptor. Rekha Chowdhary’s Jammu and Kashmir: Politics of Identity and Separatism (2016) uses "Doda belt" for Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban (p. 167), tying "Chenab Valley Hill Council" demands to Muslim sub-regional identity politics from the militancy era (pp. 167, 170, 191). It discusses the 1999 Regional Autonomy Committee Report’s reorganization proposal (Jammu, Pir Panjal, Chenab Valley), noting critics’ concerns about religious demography deepening divides. However, it doesn’t frame "Doda belt" as a politically coined term or link it to "Kashmiri Muslim irredentism"—that’s an overinterpretation. The critique is about the proposal, not the term’s origins. Ashok Motwani and Sant Kumar Sharma’s Indus Waters Story: Issues, Concerns, Perspectives (2020) questions a "well-defined" Chenab Valley in modern districts, noting narrower valleys in Reasi and Akhnoor, and critiques sub-regional narratives like "Chenab Valley" as fostering communal division in Jammu to separate Hindus and Muslims. They call it a recent neologism for polarization in water disputes. This is valid for contemporary politics, but ignores historical usage. Aijaz Ashraf Wani’s chapter in Borderland Politics in Northern India (2016) uses "Doda belt" generally (pp. 119, 121), noting its diverse Muslim-majority and Hindu populations, and mentions "Chenab Valley" only for Hill Council demands (pp. 121, 136, 152). This focuses on sub-regional assertions, not a denial of the term’s validity. These sources show "Chenab Valley" became politicized post-1990s, often tied to communal autonomy debates, but they don’t prove it’s a purely communal invention. Historically, the term has deeper roots. Thomas Thomson’s 1852 book Western Himalaya and Tibet explicitly uses "Chenab Valley" in chapters like "Camp in Chenab Valley" and "Vegetation of Chenab Valley," placing Kishtwar within it and distinguishing it from the Kashmir Valley via Banihal (p. 285, 315, 342). The 1870–71 Routes in Jammu and Kashmir lists it as a route. Geologically, Professor G.M. Bhat’s studies confirm an ancient valley via river terraces and Himalayan uplift, shaping Doda, Kishtwar, and Ramban. The 14th–15th century Kashmir Sultanate under Shihab-ud-Din integrated Kishtwar, as noted in Mohibbul Hassan’s Kashmir Under the Sultans, reinforcing cultural ties to Kashmir. User:UnpetitproleX’s reliance on selective readings to push a POV risks distorting the article. The 1999 report didn’t create "Chenab Valley"—it predates it, as seen in British-era and scholarly sources distinguishing "upper Chenab Valley" (Doda/Kishtwar/Ramban) from "lower Chenab" (Punjab). Numerous reputable sources, like those above, can be added to balance the article without bias. I urge focusing on evidence over narrative-twisting to maintain Wikipedia’s integrity.

Romit Parihar (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC) — Romit Parihar (talk · contribs) is a blocked suspected sock puppet of ANZER.AYOUB (talk · contribs). UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This reply from @Romit Parihar is LLM-generated. When you click the links and the names of the authors in his comment, you can see the LLM he used hallucinated. Tagging @Newslinger Longewal (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I've collapsed Romit Parihar's reply. The link that was purported to be to Kashmir Under the Sultans actually goes to the Greek article "Η χρηστή διοίκηση ως αρχή και ως δικαίωμα στην εθνική και ευρωπαϊκή έννομη τάξη", has a placeholder publication ID (12345678) in its URL, and is clearly unrelated to this topic. — Newslinger talk 20:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I had suspected it to be a sock of a sock-master with longstanding history on this article and hence not responded. Now that the sock has been blocked, I have also struck out the comment. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)