Talk:Azad Kashmir and Santamaría Bullring: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Hadrianheugh (talk | contribs)
6,199 edits
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Santamaría Bullring.jpg|thumb|right|250px|[[Santamaría Bullring]].]]
{{talkheader}}
{{WP India|jandk=yes|jandk-importance}}
{{WP History of Pakistan|importance=high|class=start}}


{{unsourced}}'''Santamaría Bullring''' is a [[bullring]] in [[Bogotá]], [[Colombia]] and it is currently used for [[bullfighting]], although it has also been used for concerts and other cultural activities. The stadium holds 14,500 people and was built in [[1931]].
azad kashmir ia truly beutifull place both visualy and in terms of its historic richness, its a shame that a few years a go this area was a flashpoint between two nations but since then there is a buzz filling the athmosphere and the sweet smell of peace is in the air and when peace arrives and is here to stay the whole of south asia will be able to steam roll in to the future united and succesfull.


[[Category:1931 architecture]]
[[Category:Sports venues in Colombia]]
[[Category:Bullrings]]


{{Colombia-sports-venue-stub}}


[[es:Plaza de toros de Santamaría]]
== Status in Pakistani law ==
[[fr:Arènes de Santamaría]]

Has Pakistan formally annexed Azad Kashmir? Do the residents vote for representatives to the Pakistani parliament? --[[User:Jfruh|Jfruh]] ([[User talk:Jfruh|talk]]) 21:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

==Azad Kashmir and UNO==

::The definition of a sovereign state from Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. According to the Convention, a sovereign state should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) government, and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

::is Azad Kashmir a member of UNO? [[User:Vkvora2001|vkvora]] 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

::In International law, what is important is De Facto status and not De Jure status. Does Azad Kashmir have accredited diplomats to other countries and passports accepted by any country? the Montevideo Convention definition as quoted by you does not make any sense as my local village government also has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government with a police force and it can enter into relations with other villages, towns, states and countries. In fact New York city has intelligence agreements with several countries and posts its Police officers to gather intelligence in many countries with the cooperation of intelligence agencies of many countries. This is done totally independent of US federal efforts. Is New York city a country? --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 20:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

==History not NPOV==
::The Indian version is very different from the Pakistani version. This article is currently written from a Pakistani POV. --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 00:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::there aren't too many lines here in this article so if you can point the exact POV lines it shouldn't be impossible to neutralise them. --[[User:Idleguy|Idleguy]] 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::The Indian viewpoint is that Pakistan forcibly through an invasion occupied "Azad" Kashmir in 1947 and that the area is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and not Pakistan Adminstered Kashmir. One way to neutralize this would be to state this point of view also. This differing viewpoint is the core issue that has caused several wars between India and Pakistan and directly lead them to arm themselves with Nuclear weapons. It is not an easy one to neutralize. --- [[User:Skapur|Skapur]] 03:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

::If you must tag it as POV then tag it in the proper place (at the top) or use the right tag if tagging only a section like this one. <nowiki>{{NPOV-section}}</nowiki>

::Again, the POV in the History section is not neutral and has been flagged as such. [[User:Cassius1213|Cassius1213]] ([[User talk:Cassius1213|talk]]) 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

::A bigger problem here is that it's under "Azad Kashmir" and that "POK" redirects to "Azad Kashmir," rather than either the other way around (which I suppose would place a Indian bias on it) or some neutral name. The name of the article needs to be changed. 09:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

==Kashmir is by product of Defence Corruption in India and Pakistan==

::[[Red Tape]], [[Bureaucracy]], [[Corruption]], [[Political corruption]], [[Bribery]], [[Extortion]], [[Graft]], [[Money Laundering]] all are part and parcel of [[Religon]]. [[User:Vkvora2001|vkvora]] 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

==Dr [[Karan Singh]] The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of [[Jammu & Kashmir]]==

Hi Deepak please dont remove [[Karan Singh]] from [[Jammu & Kashmir]], he is the would be "Maharaja / king" of all of Jammu & Kashmir, please check history. His father was king he stepped down from throne and he acceded to India like so many Royals did from all the Princly States.

Thanks

08:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]]

Hi Deepak,

'''What politician are you talking about, he is the KING of all [[Jammu & Kashmir]] for gods sake. Please check the history of the state.'''

[[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]] 08:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Dr [[Karan Singh]] The would be "Maharaja / king" of all of [[Jammu & Kashmir]]==

So you mean to say Karan Singh is the would be Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir?! Nevermind, the very purpose of the See also section is to provide links to readers to articles on other topics related to the concerned topic. I just don't understand why would a person who would like to gain some information regarding J&K will go to an article on Karan Singh? Besides, so what if he belongs to a royal family? --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:Haha.. KING of Jammu and Kashmir.. the last thing I want to know is that India is a [[monarchy]]. LOL! --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.

Thats all, I was just thinking the best for the people of J&K, I am not here to fight with you, please rethink and revert

Best wishes

[[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]] 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Well I know that Mr. Karan Singh has a great personality and is a good man but you have to understand the rules of Wikipedia. Adding a link to Karan Singh defeats the very purpose of the See also section and would result in a decline of Wikipedia's overall credibility. I hope you understand the problem and I would like to express my apologies for my earlier argumentative tone. Thanks --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::Also, at the same time you must realize that Wikipedia is an [[encyclopedia]] and therefore not the right mean for all this. --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Atulsnischal, if you continue with your stubborn attitude, I will have to take up the matter to a Wikipedia administrator or Arbcom. --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak

You seem to be obssed with the [[Jammu and Kashmir]] article on Wikipedia, anybody can make it out, you have got stuck and are going on and on about it, you dont respect other peoples viws too, as for me I think there should be a link to Dr [[Karan Singh]]'s article here, which was just a stub, so I was trying to develop it, thats all, you are playing politics over the whole issue, please think with informational and historical point of view.....

I have also copyed this discussion with you in the [[Jammu and Kashmir]] as well as Dr [[Karan Singh]]'s discussion page, just for the record that Dr [[Karan Singh]] article was discussed, as it is a legitimate discussion.

If you get time later please help in developing Dr [[Karan Singh]]'s article on Wikipedia too.

Just for info only as you seem interested: Latest News on Kashmir topic today:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss

Thanks
Cheers

[[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]] 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Of course I am obsessed with the article on J&K. As a matter of fact, a good chunk of that article is written by me (including the History section). And before calling me inconsiderate, look at yourself! Have you analyzed my arguments above in a logical way? You say: "''Some people still respect him on all 3 sides of the Borders of J&K, he may someday help people to come together and reach some understanding, atleast he can do some good on his own, he has a historical connection to this disputed land and its people, we can atleast provide a link to people for an important chapter in the history of J&K and a very important personality of the state.''" Hello! This is an encyclopedia. Not a propaganda website. Anyways, I find this discussion a waste of time and unintellectual. So I won't take part in it anymore as I have better things to do. --[[User:Deepak gupta|Incman]]|[[User talk:Deepak gupta|वार्ता]] 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==December 2006: Latest comments of Pakistan over Kashmir '''“The Kashmir puzzle”'''==

'''"The Kashmir puzzle"'''

'''THE HINDU'''

'''Online edition of India's National Newspaper'''

'''Thursday, Dec 14, 2006'''

'''Opinion - Letters to the Editor'''

This refers to the editorial "Clues to Kashmir peace puzzle" (Dec. 13). Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam's statement that her country has never claimed Kashmir as an integral part of its territory is a pleasant surprise. She has buttressed her assertion, saying Pakistan-held Kashmir has its own president and prime minister. It is clear that there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan's stand on Kashmir. If it indeed has no territorial design in Kashmir, it should leave the issue to the Kashmiris and stop fighting on their behalf.
K.V. Seetharamaiah,
Hassan


Ms. Aslam's remarks vindicate New Delhi's stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. One feels that the latest statements by President Pervez Musharraf and his Government are effective catalysts for a change.
K.S. Thampi,
Chennai


By stating openly that it has never claimed Kashmir as its integral part, Pakistan has only reiterated the legal position. The Indian Independence Act 1947 gave the princely states the right to choose between India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir became an irrevocable part of India once Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession to India.
It is an open secret that Pakistan's relations with India have been closely linked to its fixation on Kashmir. When all is said and done, Pakistan's latest statement is welcome, as it is likely to take the neighbours closer to solving the peace puzzle.
A. Paramesham,
New Delhi


A week ago, Gen. Musharraf said Pakistan was willing to give up its claim to Kashmir if India accepted his "four-point solution." Why should he offer to give up the claim over something his country never claimed in the first place, using a non-existent thing to negotiate? "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive!" (Sir Walter Scott, Marmion)
S.P. Sundaram,
Chennai

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/05/pakistan-kashmir.html?ref=rss


Now that Gen. Musharraf has clarified Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should seize the opportunity to settle the issue once and for all. The BJP should not be a stumbling block to the negotiations.
M.N. Srinivasan,
Vellore

Statements emanating from Pakistan are intended to pressure India in two ways. While they will invoke the wrath of those who favour self-rule for Kashmir, India will be forced to negotiate the Kashmir issue more seriously on bilateral and multilateral forums. The Government should respond with a strong message.
Rajeev Ranjan Dwivedi,
Dhenkanal, Orissa


Pakistan's latest statement is superficial and bears no significance. It should not be seen as a shift in its Kashmir policy. It is an attempt to mislead the world until the tide turns in Gen. Musharraf's favour. With India set to sign a nuclear deal with the U.S., Pakistan wants to gain some ground and win credibility in American circles. Had Gen. Musharraf really believed that the people of Kashmir should decide their fate, he would have ended cross-border terror by now.
Shashikant Singh,
Roorkee

'''Source: The Hindu
Date:14/12/2006 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2006/12/14/stories/2006121404131000.htm
'''

[[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]] 12:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

== NO mention of [[HARI SINGH]] sighning Kashmir to India ==

I love this biast article.....It leaves out one great great important fact.....The prince of Kashmir, [[HARI SINGH]], singhed Kashmir to India [[User:ARYAN818|ARYAN818]] 22:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir

Please also see other articles related to Jammu and Kashmir, also there is one on Maharaja [[Hari Singh]] last Emperor / King of all Lands and Territories of Jammu and Kashmir. There is one on [[Karan Singh]] the Maharaja's son who would have been himself the present Maharaja / Emperor / King of all Lands and Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, today if his father had not stepped down from the throne and signed and thus given all his kingdom to [[India]].

[[User:Atulsnischal|Atulsnischal]] 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== "Unilaterally annexed"? ==

That's not really NPOV - 2nd paragraph, it says that India "unilaterally annexed" the region in 1956. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.91.157.55|69.91.157.55]] ([[User talk:69.91.157.55|talk]]) 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== What about Kshmiri Pandits? ==

It is also an open fact that Kashmir (historically) was a place with majority of people being KAsmiri Pandits.They were,are being exploited and threatened to leave kashmir to increase the dominance of (Pakistan loving) Muslim Population.And everybody knows that the king of Kashmir was willing to join kashmir in INDIA.Please mention all the facts in the articles instead of writing your own views on the topics.

Thankyou <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Ravisankarvarma|Ravisankarvarma]] ([[User talk:Ravisankarvarma|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ravisankarvarma|contribs]]) 15:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

what about the mention that hari singh was evil king who abused muslims <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/81.151.100.167|81.151.100.167]] ([[User talk:81.151.100.167|talk]]) 16:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== picture not neutral: [[wp:undue]] [[wp:point]] [[wp:consensus]] violations ==

the picture in intro gives undue importance to the nation of pakistan... the picture of jammu and kashmir (a little below in the article page) can be a better neutral alternative..else add a picture with both India and Pakistan (and China if aksai chin angle is contemplated)..removing controversial picture for 3 reasons 1: undue importance to pakistan 2: to maintain neutrality 3:to avoid contradicting the statements below in the article that state that they are internationally recognised as disputed territory between india and pakistan..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:Ahem, the article is already introduced by saying <font color="grey">"This article is about the area administered by Pakistan. For other uses, see [[Kashmir]] region".</font> I don't see how this map is in anyway a violation of the above, ''if'' it had included Ladakh, Srinagar and other territories administered by India you may have a point. You may also wish to have a look at [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/maps/pk-map.gif CIA's map of Pakistan] for a comparision,(the [http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/publ/opendoc.pdf?tbl=PUBL&id=3dee2cb80 UNHRCR map] may be a little bit more to your liking though - but not the small version). Most maps of Pakistan and India treat the [[Line of Control]] as the border as can be seen from the [http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9905/21/pakistan.cyclone/pakistan.karachi.lg.jpg CNN map]. Most [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] which are not a party to the dispute (and more importantly neutral), treat the LOC as the defacto border between the two states. [[User:Pahari Sahib|<font color="green">'''Pahari Sahib'''</font>]] 22:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::you have not addressed my concerns..point2: cia's view need not be neutral or with undue importance..wiki is not owned by pakistan or usa..britain, kashmir, china and india all have locus standi..why include the territory of pakistan to pok/azadk if ladakh aksai chin etc are left out?[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 22:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::To follow on from your comments
:::* "wiki is not owned by pakistan or usa..britain" - I agree
:::* "cia's view need not be neutral or with undue importance" - I don't quite understand this bit, are you saying that the CIA is not being neutral here (what about CNN and the UN?)
:::* "why include the territory of pakistan to pok/azadk if ladakh aksai chin etc" because although they are claimed by Pakistan they are not administered by Pakistan [[User:Pahari Sahib|<font color="green">'''Pahari Sahib'''</font>]] 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::REPLY: cnn may not be neutral too..it is as neutal as geo tv or ndtv or bbc ..but UN is an organisation where no one can wield undue influence due to "veto"..un is probably a seperate entity that deserves as much importance as pakistan or india..
::::*pok is part of disputed territory of "erstwhile jand k princely province" ..so, being administered by pakistan is not reason to state it here(note that wiki is not an official pakistani website!! same applies to india too and hence both views given equal importance..both the claims are not inferior/superior to the other UNTIL FINAL RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE BY UNITED NATIONS...
::::*can't you see the similarities to south ossestian administration by russia backed s.ossetia govt there..wiki does not accept to addition of whole of russian territory in an image of south ossetia..the same logic applies here too and we cant accept the presence of the whole pakistan territory in a pok/azadk image..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
===comparison table===
{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|-
! Comparison table
! South Ossetia dispute
! PoK / azad k dispute
|-
| independence claim by the disputed region
| yes
| yes
|-
| Recognised by the international community as "part of the occupying nation"?
| no
| no
|-
| Recognised by international community as an "independent nation"?
| no
| no
|-
| Recognised by the occupying country as "independent nation" ?
| no (russsia didnt recognise as on august 22 2008)
| no (pakistan can not let go of the area as totally independent due to its vital importance to its survival<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/5.stm</ref>)
|-
| Do the residents support the occupying nation?
| yes (russian occupation welcomed by south ossetia..unofficial referendum held)
| yes-i guess (assuming no major protest against pakistan occupation..no referendum though)
|-
| Does the other side accept it?
| no (georgia calls them "invaders")
| no (india calls them occupiers and the area as "pok")
|-
| Did the dispute displace original inhabitants?
| yes-contentious (georgians forced to move out)
| yes-contentious (hindus in PoK and kashmiri pundits forced to move out)
|-
| Is the disputed territory truly "independent"?
| no (dependent on russia)
| no (dependent on pakistan)
|-
| Was the region attacked by the country to reclaim administrative control?
| yes (it led to the 2008 south ossetia war)
| no (since india has so far not violated the loc to reclaim pok)
|-
| Was the occupying nation's "full" territorial extent included in the image of the disputed territory in wikipedia?
| no (in fact the nation that didnt have control is mentioned:georgia)
| i hope it was "no"..but THE present REVERTED version means the answer is "yes"(HENCE MY ARGUMENTS OF [[WP:POINT]] AND [[WP:UNDUE]])
|}
table created by me for clarity..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 00:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, any image that includes ALL of its neighbouring states or nations will be neutral..and could be considered[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 23:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
====references====
{{reflist}}

==article title of "azad k" about a disputed territory is biased towards pakistan ignores "pok" term==
=== already notified in edit summ..revert also undiscussed ===
both "azad k" and "pok" are pakistan-coined and indian-coined terms respectively..The ideal neutral term will be "areas of former princely state of J&K under pakistan control"..since thats too long, added both versions for sake of neutrality ([[wp: point]]) and to avoid [[wp:undue]] bias towards pakistani view..PLEASE NOTE THAT NO COUNTRY INCLUDING PAKISTAN HAS RECOGNISED INDEPENDENT KASHMIR (i.e., azad k) [[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
so restoring hasty revert..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:The move was clearly going to be controversial, so why did you move it? And if you want to move it to something that fits your personal POV you should at least follow [[Wikipedia:MOS]]. [[User:Pahari Sahib|<font color="green">'''Pahari Sahib'''</font>]] 22:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::the previous heading per se is controversial..further the previou header violates [[wp:point]], [[wp:undue]] very blatantly..move was well explained..so, am reverting your hasty revert..in any case typing pok or azad kashmir will redirect to the new header that i made considering wiki requirements of neutrality ..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 22:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::: (Until your latest move), the article title had just reflected the fact that there is a political entity officially called "Azad Kashmir" - it may or may not be [[Azad]] but that is its official name. Perhaps if you were Tibetan you could argue perhaps that the [[People's Liberation Army]] hasn't really liberated anyone - should that mean you would move it to [[People's liberation Army / occupation army]] and trying to justify this move on the basis of [[WP:NPOV]] etc? [[User:Pahari Sahib|<font color="green">'''Pahari Sahib'''</font>]] 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::* "azad kashmir" entity still exists just like "pok" entity..'''both links have not been deleted'''..instead they redirect to a neutral version that mentions both the ends of the spectrum describing a common place..
::::*"azad k" is a point of view of pakistan..
:::: "pok" is a point of view of india..
:::: neither deserves '''"EXCLUSIVE"''' RIGHTS to the article title page...
::::*india and the united nations dont recognise this "azad k" term..
::::*"pok/AZADK" somewhat similar to "Georgian province of south ossetia/ UNRECOGNISED INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC OF S OSSETIA" and its independence claims are similar too..no one in this earth is even prepared to recognise the terms(independent/azad) other than the friendly invader(russia in case of s.ossetia; united pre1971pakistan in the case of pok)..
::::* so diverting wiki to represent "pakistan ONLY"propaganda is unadvisable since india too has a locus standi over the disputed area (similar to georgian claim over south ossetia)..
::::so in the end, arguably "Aazad k" ALONE is as biased as the term "pok" ALONE..How can india or other nations even think of calling the disputed territory as "azad (independent) k" when it is dependent on pakistan and no country including pak not recognising the independence of kashmir.'pok' is how it is is known to non pakistani citizens and hence the article shall reflect a neutral view MENTIONING BOTH pok as well as azadk..(i again remind you to PLEASE NOTE THAT "AZAD KASHMIR" and "pok" Links has not been deleted--they redirect to this present name)[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have asked for a [[Wikipedia:Third opinion|third opinion]] on this. [[User:Pahari Sahib|<font color="green">'''Pahari Sahib'''</font>]] 23:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::your decision is welcome..but let me remind other users that wiki does not support majoritarianism too..please ensure that the article is not hijacked to a biased "azad k" only title or a "pok" only title..please dont violate wp:undue and wp:point..[[User:Cityvalyu|Cityvalyu]] ([[User talk:Cityvalyu|talk]]) 00:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:51, 11 October 2008

File:Santamaría Bullring.jpg
Santamaría Bullring.

Santamaría Bullring is a bullring in Bogotá, Colombia and it is currently used for bullfighting, although it has also been used for concerts and other cultural activities. The stadium holds 14,500 people and was built in 1931.

Stub icon 1 Stub icon 2

This article about a Colombian sports venue is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azad_Kashmir&oldid=244513452"