![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The section is heavily inclined towards one reference. The reference clearly states This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.. As such it cannot be used to support these statements. They can only be written as POV and not as facts. This section needs to be corrected as it heavily cites this reference for facts Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I trust you. But being "heavily inclined towards one reference" (which I think it is not) doesn't make it unreliable. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This section has become spaghetti. A paragraph is devoted to human rights violations commited by Indian forces, then a para to kashmiri pandits, then to something else, then we return to kashmiri pandits and human rights violations and repeat a lot of material. A lot of it is redundant, some is not, so will need to be repurposed. I tried to consolidate some, but am struggling due to lack of time.
Second issue is the rediff reference. It is a person's opinion (an opinion column). It cannot be used to support these claims, see WP:RS. One can put them back, but will need RS support. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 17:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you think, just because I disagree with you, that automatically means I am here to destroy wikipedia? Assume good faith please. Choose your words more cautiously, and be polite. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong, guys? -- Jayemd ( talk) 05:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I see some edit warring between two users on this page. I strongly encourage both users to discuss it here or bring it to DRN rather than edit warring. Electric Catfish 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"Indian security forces have assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community."
-RAPE IN KASHMIR - A Crime of War by Asia Watch, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights ( [1])
I invite users who say it is vandalism, it is disruption, it is damage to the user. I want to say to them, "Template:Infobox of military conflict should be used here. Why do the users have objections. It is long military conflicts. It generated
Indo-Pakistani Wars,
Sino-Indian War,
Chola incident and
1987 Sino-Indian skirmish. It involves the following parties
Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Hizbul Mujahideen
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
Al-Badr
|combatant1=
India
|commander2=
Amanullah Khan
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed
Maulana Masood Azhar
Sayeed Salahudeen
Fazlur Rehman Khalil
Farooq Kashmiri
Arfeen Bhai (until 1998)
Bakht Zameen
Why can't there be any infobox for this? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jozoisis (
talk •
contribs) 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir conflict have generated Indo-Pakistani Wars and one Sino-Indian War. War on Terror has also related conflicts but it has a war box, therefore I think the reason u have given baseless.-- Jozoisis ( talk) 11:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove scrolling from the references. Scroll boxes should not be used in the article space because they affect printability. See {{ Scroll box}} 130.91.93.243 ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add your issues (if any) regarding this section if you feel is not neutral. The previous discussion was resolved, but some editors think it was not. That section has become too complicated to trace back. So what I request is you read the section and add here where you think is disputed. I will then put the disputed tag back to the section till it is resolved. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
These claims and comments are POV, whether it is his claim that Pakistan was complicit in the formation of militant groups or his claim that India is killing civilians. None of these can be used as facts. In exile, he neither represents the govt. of pakistan nor the people of kashmir. So, his views have to be kept in the article "as is". Adding his "confession" as a fact and then using weasel words to remove POV from the innocent killings is double standards. As mentioned earlier, WP is not to judge or certify something, it just represents what is said. In such cases, (interviews), the statements need to be as they are spoken, in quotes and without paraphrasing. How about I start paraphrasing the sentence of the Kashmiri Hindu talking to BBC to " The person claimed people, who according to him, were armed insurgents, allegedly tortured and killed". How would this sound? Also, please do not start reverting people's edits without discussion, unless it is vandalism, deletion etc as we saw in the recent past that led to semi-protection of the page. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Gentleman, please pack in the edit warring. You don't seem to be getting anywhere on this page; I can see that both of you have feelings that run high on this issue, and would strongly suggest that you do as suggested and take it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:DRN to get some outside input. If you carry on reverting the article back and forth you're both likely to end up sweating out a block, and no-one wants that. We have processes for resolving disputes like this, please make use of them instead of butting heads. Yunshui 雲 水 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Why was this reference removed by User:Mrt3366. The video is not a copy paste. A live evidence uploaded by Public Broadcasting service Trust of India can be used as a reference. Regarding WP:CITEKILL, kill other references such as news paper reports. I‘m restoring my edit, if there is any thing respond here. MehrajMir (Talk) 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are reference from other encyclopaedia used here? Is it not against policy? 111.91.95.40 ( talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Eg.
Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir
- sourced from Britannica.com
This by itself does not mean that Wikipedia itself is or is not a branch of Britannica or the Church or CIA or MI6. It is just about standards.
Another source clarifies that the self-styled liberators were supported covertly by Pakistani Army. From this source [ from FAQ section]
“ | Of the 75 crore to be paid the first installment of Rs. 20 crore was already released. Invasion of Kashmir by self-styled liberators with the covert support of the Pakistani Army took place before the second installment was paid. Government of India decided to withhold it. Lord Mountbatten was of the opinion that it amounted to a violation of the mutually agreed conditions and he brought it to the notice of Gandhiji. To Gandhiji's ethical sense the policy of tit for tat was repugnant and he readily agreed with the Viceroy's point of view. | ” |
So mention covert support from Pakistani Army also. 111.91.95.40 ( talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is covert support of Pakistani Army not mentioned yet after secondary sources are mentioned?
111.91.95.40 (
talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's resolve the apparently gratuitous dispute civilly. This portion of the content is the core of the dispute, now the question is why not add it to Rape in India or Rape in Jammu and Kashmir after sprucing it up a little for neutrality and call it a day? No? BTW there are a few misconceptions floating around unfettered. I would like to dispel them.
Hence I request all of you. Do not edit war. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 04:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
These sections are now far to large for this article, the recent additions of a section for rape is just undue. We have articles to cover human rights abuses and rape. Rape in India, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. The HRV sections in this article have to be cut down to just a summary. I will do this in the next few days and would appreciate input from others on the best way to go about it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Now let's scrutinize them as thoroughly as possible.
Hence do not edit war. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
my suggestion is we create a sandbox page (and sub pages) and get some external help to guide us through this process- I strongly oppose that, since that is needlessly time-consuming. Some of us might not have that much enthusiasm or the time to follow through with it.
Regarding the statement, this is for the first time an Indian official, in office, has criticized the army and thus was welcomed by opposition as better late than never.- it is irrelevant what you make of it. It is not the first time nor will it be the last. It was not a criticism. Currently the article uses "stating during his tenure", well he didn't "state" anything about it either; it was a rhetorical question that is well within the purview of subjectivity. I implore everybody to check the sources first.
In addition it is not about Rape in India, it is about rape of common people by the military- again irrelevant what you make of it. Rape only has two components IMO, first, the perpetrator, and second, the victim. That's it. Do not obfuscate the discussion please.
Till then we should leave all the content in there, so we know what to move to the right pages.- you sound like an ideal filibusterer to me, KBB. I am sorry but you do. If you're consciously doing this then please stop your attempts to stonewall improvement basing on your preferences. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
But I will also agree that we move all this including these statements and quotes from BBC, Mussharraf, these officials etc.- No, not Musharraf's confessions. He was the army chief and President of Pakistan any direct comments from him will automatiocally be relevant in this article. Besides, it is not only about Human rights Issue. It is about Pakistan's overt involvement in aiding terrorists.
Now, Mehrajmir13, that not-so-long BBC quote is a first-hand comment from an eye-witness of the heinous tortures who was interviewed by the reporter of BBC as opposed to lengthy, cherry-picked and pointless quotes from the pages of secondary sources that are not even statements but rhetorical questions. Two don't compare. Same goes for Musharraf's admission. Come on. But even then I don't mind removing the BBC-quote and keeping it in the sub-article, as long as both the sections are re-written from the very beginning (i.e. 3.1 and 3.2). Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Fellas, everything there is relevant to this article. But, since there is a whole other separate article covering human rights abuses - we need to provide a brief summary. That means we don't necessarily have to get rid of anything, except maybe some of the more trivial information (if anything on that subject can be called "trivial"). As for what specifically is "trivial", well, all I can do is provide my opinion. Also, keep in mind that we're not really removing anything from Wikipedia at all, we're just moving it. -- Director ( talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently the size of the article is beyond the acceptable limit of
readable prose size (136.27Kb)
. That means it almost immediately should be divided. IMHO, it would be ideal if the article could be wrapped up inside 80Kb
, now the question is what to leave out. It should be easy to notice that what sections of this article are acting as a magnet for unhelpful contributions (i.e. 3.1
and 3.2
). All we are saying is since we already have the spin-off articles and we have almost exactly the same duplicated contents in the spin-off articles of the two Human rights abuses sections, it would be better to just leave them there and — except for the summaries — jettison/merge those contents from this article in order to reduce size.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing the human rights section (lets do that and then perhaps move on), I think it should not consist of more than two fair-sized paragraphs (three max). One for general info, and one each for the two areas of Kashmir. Thoughts? -- Director ( talk) 08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless I am very much mistaken, the title and subject of this thread is the "Human Rights" section.
- Are you being sarcastic? If you are then I am not sure I appreciate this. How can you be mistaken when the heading itself is "Human rights"? That said, I didn't switch to a far larger and more complex subject. You're redundantly exaggerating. I simply cited a reason which is only a part of a broader issue in order to trim the two sections. Enough talk, just do it. If you can then let me do it. The reason I am waiting is I don't wish to "gut it unilaterally" as
Darkness Shines so overtly states. Hence, let's get this over with.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
could conceivably be understood as " sarcasm"- don't tell me what can be conceivably understood as what.
I also recommend you take a break from the "captaincy" of the thread
- And I also recommend you take a break from the habit of condescending. I didn't declare myself as the "authority" or the "captain" as some might like you to believe.
Can we please try first to agree on a rough layout?
- Where have disagreed with you on that so far? I know some of these guys for quite some time now. You hang around for a few months with these people, face the allegations, deal with their chicaneries, pettifoggery and I guarantee you'll be appearing just as authoritative to others. I am slowly reaching the limits of my patience. Please try to understand, this is not the only place where we have interacted in a not-so-productive manner.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
God!! Why not focus on the fucking content? Why take my name in every second sentence that you post here KBB? Why are you commenting on me? How long am I expected to hold off and tolerate this nonsense?
who could very well be a paid individual
- That is your obnoxious POV-based conjecture. (Don't you see anything beyond your dogmatic beliefs?)
What will convince me that Mrt3366 is editing in good faith?
- Nothing will convince you, that's it. I just have to deal with you till the time one of us leaves wiki permanently. I am not going to state anything about you any further because that might not seem civil. You're making this personal KBB. Like you've always done. Let's focus on the content and keep our conjectures and sentiments behind.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 05:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The heading Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's involvement in forming militant groups
is pov? How come? And how is
arbitrary removal valid/necessary here? Should we make it Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's support for militant groups
? If we only make it Musharraf's claims
; it begs the question claims about about what?
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"Please avoid extremeness and bad faith."
- I am deliberately trying to be polite with you and you on the other hand are calling me a bad-faith editor. Do not edit war. Consider yourself warned.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 10:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"I am deliberately trying to be polite with you", please tell me otherwise??. First you must change your authority behaviour with other editors and on every edit you are sending them edit warring notice. Neither you have any ownership and authority nor you are mentor here. I do not think I have to read again NPOV, may you need?, because in the added passage Musharaf also claims
"world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who according to Musharraf are "innocent civilians", why you don't chose to highlight the title of the section from that passage??. Do you think yourself neutral. The title, "Musharaf's claims" covers both passages, and that is neutrality. I ask you very humbly please be a just contributor as others are. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's involvement in forming militant groups
. It is not a POV to highlight an info that makes the section important in the first place.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Let's delete/merge the section about Musharraf's claims and create a new section with the following content. I think this content (if needed, after a mild modification) is every bit as relevant and needed in a separate section especially because TWO PAKISTANI HEADS (PRESIDENT Musharraf and Zardari) corroborated the claims:
Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf, stated in an interview, that Pakistani government indeed helped to form underground militant groups to fight against Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations. According to Musharraf it was because ″everybody is interested in strategic deals with India, but Pakistan is always seen as the rogue.″ He also stated that the world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who Musharraf claimed were "innocent civilians". [ref 1]
Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan. [ref 2] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir. [ref 2] According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon both former members of the National Security Council the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young men in the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks. [ref 3] In 2009, then President Asif Zardari admitted at a conference in Islamabad that in the past Pakistan had created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its geostrategic agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir". [ref 4]
Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices. [ref 5] Militant groups have also kidnapped journalists, tortured and killed them and have intimidated newspapers into not publishing story's on human rights abuses. [ref 6]
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Feel free to weigh in or not. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The source states Similarly, children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs. and is used to support the claim "Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices." what is the problem I don't understand. KBB please admit that you simply want to censor this information from going in by hook or by crook. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Some more about this issue:
About Rs. 2.4 crore are paid out per month by the Inter-Services Intelligence, in order to fund its activities in Jammu and Kashmir. [r 1] Pro-Pakistani groups were reportedly favored over other militant groups. [r 1] Creation of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI. [r 2] [r 3] According to American Intelligence officials, ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT. [r 3] The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir. [r 4]
Feel free to comment on it or suggest any improvements. Thank you all. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You have recklessly bullied editors by your rollback rights in the recent past. The most recent one [4], you rolled back to your own old edit, killing everything in between by myself, [5] from User:Darkness Shine and MirajMir while only providing explanation in the edit for edit warring from User:MirajMir. This is atrocious. I am looking for avenues and collecting the other evidence to report. Meanwhile, you are requested to stop. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
And BTW I didn't use rollback, I used edit summaries while reverting stop maligning me this way. It's redundant and irrelevant here. Also constant belly-aching about how I am bullish is getting too much for me. I am humbly asking you to stop this behavior as it's not seeming polite. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Nobody thinks they have been involved in the dispute, yet we have a huge section devoted to this, I propose we remove it and add a line or two to a section on militancy in the region. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
For me it's simple:
if there is no reliable source: delete the content.
If there are two reliable sources backing claims that are contesting each other:
state both neutrally.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"the section is devoted to saying, well no their not involved at all"- maybe I'm not reading it as you are, but I think it's not exactly same as saying that they are not involved at all. The section has multiple statements that imply a close connection between Al-Qaeda and Kashmir. I am in favor of two sections. No, actually I am not so much against removal of the section "Al-Qaeda involvement" as I am against a vague name of the section which will be inevitably needed to accommodate the contents of this section.
My primary objection is that should we choose as broad a section heading as "militancy" it would be undue. I apprehend, basing upon my experience dealing with these articles, that all sorts of random gibberish and unreliable speculations about non-notable incidents and misrepresentation of sources will be inserted to blur these Presidents' overt and radical admissions. Make no mistake, we won't be able to keep this article in a perennially protected mode nor will we be able to take part in all the discussions. I think there has got to be a more specific section name that indicates — to put it quite bluntly — how Pakistani government is using terrorist organizations to fight Indian troops and also in order to frame Indian side of Kashmir as a turmoil-laden land. Which Two Pakistani Presidents have already admitted on two separate occasions.
I hope I am clear enough. We must present the viewpoints fairly in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. Yes, if Indian presidents and all other reliable intelligence organizations start accepting that India is using terrorism to fight proxy wars in Pakistani-Kashmir, I will accept another section with a heading "Relation between Indian and Militants". Till then I am against any step that requires a blurry name of the section. Thank you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
DS, I am not asking you to use the word "terrorist" in the heading, am I? Where did you get that impression from? I am simply asking you to create one section dedicated to disseminate information about Pakistan's involvement with the terrorists to pursue disingenuous geo-strategic agenda in Indian-administered Kashmir. In future we might add another section about India's usage of militants if enough number of neutral and credible sources (without apparent COI) state it explicitly. Now, we all know that there are sources which assume the camaraderie-based connection between Pakistani Government and heinous Militants is a fait accompli. All I am saying is that we must not gloss over the difference. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have found some dead links on this page but don't have sufficient permissions to edit this page. So I'm suggesting the correct links for these dead links. Someone with the necessary permissions should make the edit.
Dalilida ( talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Please add covert support to barbaric infiltrators by Pakistany Army. Otherwise this will be a biased and worthless article. 111.91.75.72 ( talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This proposal is to prune anything excess of a succinct summary from the Human rights sections and to merge the rest with direct spin-out articles (e.g. Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, etc) of the sections. Our guideline says:
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided
The
article size (141,853 bytes
) currently needs a generous trim and that section 3. Human rights abuse
alone is over 72,000 bytes
in size. If I am not rebutted within a few days I will humbly take it that I have others' tacit approval, albeit I would personally like to get active support on this. All I'm saying is since we already have the spin-out articles and we have almost exactly the same contents duplicated in the spin-outs, let's remove the contents from this bulky article which now takes too long to load on slow connections (trust me I have tried and failed to load!).
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 06:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
In the lead of the article I came across this quotation
"The whole of Kashmir nation is standing against these elections, because these elections are not as India claims in the United Nations, that people of Kashmir are representing themselves in these elections, that this is the self determination,"
. Now I have a few questions.
Panun Kashmir, a frontline organisation of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits, has also rejected the ‘self-rule’ and ‘demilitarization’ proposal. It has, inter alia suggested ‘internal reorganisation’ of Jammu and Kashmir, under which, the state is to be divided into four parts, including the ‘union territory of Panun Kashmir’ in the Kashmir valley.
This is definitely a way better written article than the Timeline of Kashmir Conflict. Anyway that the two articles could be merged and have the POV problems on the Timeline article cleaned up? 142.59.203.143 ( talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123
the hanging of Afzal Guru and the ensuing protests should be under recent developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.77.95 ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's discuss these changes first. Diff Thank you, Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senior Congress leader and member of its Central Working Committee, Makhan Lal Fotedar, in a statement blamed NC President and former chief minister Farooq Abdullah for rigging the 1987 elections. [ [8]] 63.87.61.76 ( talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Plese add the following to the Article:See also section.
98.23.53.199 ( talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
As per Pakistanis and Kashmiris they are Freedom Fighters. As per India they are terrorist. But as per WP neutrality they are Separatists. Please respect WP neutrality and do not try to impose hate propaganda here.
Miosong (
talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Sock of LanguageXpert
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
39.32.60.220 (
talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I restored your comments which DS had removed without any reason or summary. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the commas from the sentence "India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir, a part of Pakistan." They are grammatically incorrect. This sentence is the first in second paragraph of the "1989 popular insurgency and militancy" section under the Timeline heading. Rglaudell ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the commas from the sentence "In October 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the Kashmir separatists, terrorists in an interview with The Wall Street Journal." It is grammatically incorrect. This sentence is in the third paragraph of the "1989 popular insurgency and militancy" section under the Timeline heading. Rglaudell ( talk) 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNCIP)" to "Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)." This inaccurate initialism is under the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 heading in the Timeline section. One can follow the link to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan to confirm the abbreviation as UNMOGIP. The UNCIP created the UNMOGIP. Rglaudell ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we get reliable casualty figures ? This source gives the following break down, Militants: 22779, Civilians: 14680 and Security Personnel: 6106, for a total of 43565 ( http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/annual_casualties.htm). But the info box currently claims that just the number of civilians killed was about 40000. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 09:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I have a problem in this section with the statement An interesting and true account of Kashmiri History is also available at the main article History of Kashmir. Firstly, this main article is already quoted at the beginning of the section so does not need to be mentioned again, unless their is some kind of promotion ( WP:PROMO) going on. Plus, I assume that all articles on Wikipedia meets verifiability ( WP:VERIFY) standards, so we don't have to be told that the article is true. Can we remove this statement? Any opinions? -- Wikishagnik ( talk) 11:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could some one explain me how a part-time journalist and an opinion piece amount to scholarly reference about a topic so big. I hope Ehasbrouck could throw some light on it.... ƬheStrike Σagle 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no desire to engage in what I presume is likely to be a fight over how Wikipedia portrays the unquestionably controversial issue of Kashmir.
But I noticed that an important *issue* was missing from this page. I tried to add a minimal pointer to the issue, simply to alert Wikipedia readers to the fact that this is regarded by many people as an issue, without expressing any opinion on the underlying facts. That's why I worded it as "Some people believe...". Some people might dispute the validity of this belief, but I don't think there is any real question that such a belief is widely held.
So much of the discussion of Kashmir has become so intricate, and so removed into meta-discussion and exegesis of decades of voluminous prior literature, that it is hard to find anything about the issue by an expert that bothers to mention the fundamentals. The fundamental issues as they are seen by the masses are clearer in the demands and marching chants and leaflets of political organizations, but I presume that these would not be welcomed as sources by Wikipedia, even as sources about what people perceive the issues to be.
I cited two sources as evidence that such a belief is widely-held among those observing, commenting on, and analyzing the issue: (1) the text of a talk I was invited to give (as a professional travel journalist and professional human rights activist, someone knowledgeable and with a perspective that is a significant part of the debate, and thus one important to include in that symposium as it is for Wikipedia) at an Ivy League university symposium co-sponsored by multiple academic departments and organizations, first published on my personal Website (self-published articles on which have won awards for investigative journalism in a contest juried by journalism-school faculty) and also reprinted by a significant activist organization representative of widespread opinion among Kashmiris; and (2) a widely read and influential essay by a leading Indian scholar and expert on human rights ( /info/en/?search=K._Balagopal) first published in a leading Indian scholarly journal ( /info/en/?search=Economic_and_Political_Weekly) and reprinted as part of a "Festschrift" in his honor, reflecting the significance widely ascribed by other academics and human rights experts to both the author and the article. If the fact that a point of view is being put forward in EPW and reprinted posthumously in such an online Festschrift to keep it and make it more widely available isn't evidence that it is part of the terms of serious intellectual debate in India -- regardless of whether it is universally agreed with -- I don't know what source would better serve that purpose. Ehasbrouck ( talk) 17:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Title doesn't seem to be neutral. I am not sure if it deserves separate section, it can be merged to any other. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Human3015: Thanks for adding sources. However there is significant distance between what the sources say and what your text says here [9]. Your text involves " synthesis," a concept you need to understand and avoid. You cannot also report what a lone politician says as a statement of fact. It has to be attributed to that source via an inline attribution. But it won't have any weight. You really need a Constitutional lawyer to say that in order to have a proper weight.
I am quite sceptical of your whole project because the Indian Constitution was passed and the J&K Constituent Assembly was formed when India was negotiating with UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and India assured the UN body that the Indian Constitution does not stand in the way of holding a plebiscite. Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm in support of shifting matter of this section in article to another section. Just 4-5 months ago there was a short discussion between OccultZone and admin Philg88 "read here in old archive talk page", where they agreed to shift that matter to another section. There is a sub-section named US President Obama on the Conflict, we can rename it as US Presidents' views on the Conflict and can add Clinton's remark there. Also any sourced material related to views of other former US Presidents on Kashmir conflict can be added there.-- Human3015 22:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have re-added the CM of J&K's statement with reference in his own words. I think that I made it neutral enough, and thus as the story got extensive coverage, the statement of the CM of an Indian administered state should have a place there. Faizan ( talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This article name is Kashmir conflict, Regions of former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir which are now administered by India, Pakistan and China are under the scope of this article, but this article largely contains issues related to only Indian administered side, where are more details regarding Human rights issues or elections in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan? We all should try to improve this article, obviously I will give most contribution from reliable sources but still others should also involve in this issue. [14], [15], [16], [17]. There are tonnes of other reliable sources. -- Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Disputed para in the lead is
"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.[19][20][21][22] European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.[23][24][25] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[23]
It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last ten days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation.Whistle blowing is encouraged world wide so whistle blowers opinion should be respected here. 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 05:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I added this from Amnesty international 30 june 2015 report on kashmir https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=669877951&oldid=669854640 but user Kestwol called it nonconstructive. Removal of sourced content restored. Recent Amnesty report on completion of 25 years of armed forces special act is all about kashmir conflict hence no reason for calling it nonconstructive and edit warring. 39.47.134.197 ( talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Please some one read the reference before playing undo button case example of non constructive edits by user kestwol. 39.47.134.197 ( talk) 10:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a growing voice against Indian youth joining army for free food family holidays and liquor for which Andhara Pardesh MP P Ravindra Babu also raised voice but he was then booked by Bihar high court stated times of india. [1] [2]
I included this but one user objected so i thought let us talk on its inclusion. 39.47.134.197 ( talk) 09:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The section is heavily inclined towards one reference. The reference clearly states This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.. As such it cannot be used to support these statements. They can only be written as POV and not as facts. This section needs to be corrected as it heavily cites this reference for facts Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I trust you. But being "heavily inclined towards one reference" (which I think it is not) doesn't make it unreliable. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This section has become spaghetti. A paragraph is devoted to human rights violations commited by Indian forces, then a para to kashmiri pandits, then to something else, then we return to kashmiri pandits and human rights violations and repeat a lot of material. A lot of it is redundant, some is not, so will need to be repurposed. I tried to consolidate some, but am struggling due to lack of time.
Second issue is the rediff reference. It is a person's opinion (an opinion column). It cannot be used to support these claims, see WP:RS. One can put them back, but will need RS support. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 17:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Do you think, just because I disagree with you, that automatically means I am here to destroy wikipedia? Assume good faith please. Choose your words more cautiously, and be polite. Mrt 3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong, guys? -- Jayemd ( talk) 05:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I see some edit warring between two users on this page. I strongly encourage both users to discuss it here or bring it to DRN rather than edit warring. Electric Catfish 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"Indian security forces have assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community."
-RAPE IN KASHMIR - A Crime of War by Asia Watch, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights ( [1])
I invite users who say it is vandalism, it is disruption, it is damage to the user. I want to say to them, "Template:Infobox of military conflict should be used here. Why do the users have objections. It is long military conflicts. It generated
Indo-Pakistani Wars,
Sino-Indian War,
Chola incident and
1987 Sino-Indian skirmish. It involves the following parties
Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Jaish-e-Mohammed
Hizbul Mujahideen
Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
Al-Badr
|combatant1=
India
|commander2=
Amanullah Khan
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed
Maulana Masood Azhar
Sayeed Salahudeen
Fazlur Rehman Khalil
Farooq Kashmiri
Arfeen Bhai (until 1998)
Bakht Zameen
Why can't there be any infobox for this? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jozoisis (
talk •
contribs) 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir conflict have generated Indo-Pakistani Wars and one Sino-Indian War. War on Terror has also related conflicts but it has a war box, therefore I think the reason u have given baseless.-- Jozoisis ( talk) 11:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove scrolling from the references. Scroll boxes should not be used in the article space because they affect printability. See {{ Scroll box}} 130.91.93.243 ( talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Please add your issues (if any) regarding this section if you feel is not neutral. The previous discussion was resolved, but some editors think it was not. That section has become too complicated to trace back. So what I request is you read the section and add here where you think is disputed. I will then put the disputed tag back to the section till it is resolved. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
These claims and comments are POV, whether it is his claim that Pakistan was complicit in the formation of militant groups or his claim that India is killing civilians. None of these can be used as facts. In exile, he neither represents the govt. of pakistan nor the people of kashmir. So, his views have to be kept in the article "as is". Adding his "confession" as a fact and then using weasel words to remove POV from the innocent killings is double standards. As mentioned earlier, WP is not to judge or certify something, it just represents what is said. In such cases, (interviews), the statements need to be as they are spoken, in quotes and without paraphrasing. How about I start paraphrasing the sentence of the Kashmiri Hindu talking to BBC to " The person claimed people, who according to him, were armed insurgents, allegedly tortured and killed". How would this sound? Also, please do not start reverting people's edits without discussion, unless it is vandalism, deletion etc as we saw in the recent past that led to semi-protection of the page. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Gentleman, please pack in the edit warring. You don't seem to be getting anywhere on this page; I can see that both of you have feelings that run high on this issue, and would strongly suggest that you do as suggested and take it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:DRN to get some outside input. If you carry on reverting the article back and forth you're both likely to end up sweating out a block, and no-one wants that. We have processes for resolving disputes like this, please make use of them instead of butting heads. Yunshui 雲 水 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Why was this reference removed by User:Mrt3366. The video is not a copy paste. A live evidence uploaded by Public Broadcasting service Trust of India can be used as a reference. Regarding WP:CITEKILL, kill other references such as news paper reports. I‘m restoring my edit, if there is any thing respond here. MehrajMir (Talk) 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Why are reference from other encyclopaedia used here? Is it not against policy? 111.91.95.40 ( talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Eg.
Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir
- sourced from Britannica.com
This by itself does not mean that Wikipedia itself is or is not a branch of Britannica or the Church or CIA or MI6. It is just about standards.
Another source clarifies that the self-styled liberators were supported covertly by Pakistani Army. From this source [ from FAQ section]
“ | Of the 75 crore to be paid the first installment of Rs. 20 crore was already released. Invasion of Kashmir by self-styled liberators with the covert support of the Pakistani Army took place before the second installment was paid. Government of India decided to withhold it. Lord Mountbatten was of the opinion that it amounted to a violation of the mutually agreed conditions and he brought it to the notice of Gandhiji. To Gandhiji's ethical sense the policy of tit for tat was repugnant and he readily agreed with the Viceroy's point of view. | ” |
So mention covert support from Pakistani Army also. 111.91.95.40 ( talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is covert support of Pakistani Army not mentioned yet after secondary sources are mentioned?
111.91.95.40 (
talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's resolve the apparently gratuitous dispute civilly. This portion of the content is the core of the dispute, now the question is why not add it to Rape in India or Rape in Jammu and Kashmir after sprucing it up a little for neutrality and call it a day? No? BTW there are a few misconceptions floating around unfettered. I would like to dispel them.
Hence I request all of you. Do not edit war. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 04:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
These sections are now far to large for this article, the recent additions of a section for rape is just undue. We have articles to cover human rights abuses and rape. Rape in India, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. The HRV sections in this article have to be cut down to just a summary. I will do this in the next few days and would appreciate input from others on the best way to go about it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Now let's scrutinize them as thoroughly as possible.
Hence do not edit war. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
my suggestion is we create a sandbox page (and sub pages) and get some external help to guide us through this process- I strongly oppose that, since that is needlessly time-consuming. Some of us might not have that much enthusiasm or the time to follow through with it.
Regarding the statement, this is for the first time an Indian official, in office, has criticized the army and thus was welcomed by opposition as better late than never.- it is irrelevant what you make of it. It is not the first time nor will it be the last. It was not a criticism. Currently the article uses "stating during his tenure", well he didn't "state" anything about it either; it was a rhetorical question that is well within the purview of subjectivity. I implore everybody to check the sources first.
In addition it is not about Rape in India, it is about rape of common people by the military- again irrelevant what you make of it. Rape only has two components IMO, first, the perpetrator, and second, the victim. That's it. Do not obfuscate the discussion please.
Till then we should leave all the content in there, so we know what to move to the right pages.- you sound like an ideal filibusterer to me, KBB. I am sorry but you do. If you're consciously doing this then please stop your attempts to stonewall improvement basing on your preferences. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
But I will also agree that we move all this including these statements and quotes from BBC, Mussharraf, these officials etc.- No, not Musharraf's confessions. He was the army chief and President of Pakistan any direct comments from him will automatiocally be relevant in this article. Besides, it is not only about Human rights Issue. It is about Pakistan's overt involvement in aiding terrorists.
Now, Mehrajmir13, that not-so-long BBC quote is a first-hand comment from an eye-witness of the heinous tortures who was interviewed by the reporter of BBC as opposed to lengthy, cherry-picked and pointless quotes from the pages of secondary sources that are not even statements but rhetorical questions. Two don't compare. Same goes for Musharraf's admission. Come on. But even then I don't mind removing the BBC-quote and keeping it in the sub-article, as long as both the sections are re-written from the very beginning (i.e. 3.1 and 3.2). Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Fellas, everything there is relevant to this article. But, since there is a whole other separate article covering human rights abuses - we need to provide a brief summary. That means we don't necessarily have to get rid of anything, except maybe some of the more trivial information (if anything on that subject can be called "trivial"). As for what specifically is "trivial", well, all I can do is provide my opinion. Also, keep in mind that we're not really removing anything from Wikipedia at all, we're just moving it. -- Director ( talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Currently the size of the article is beyond the acceptable limit of
readable prose size (136.27Kb)
. That means it almost immediately should be divided. IMHO, it would be ideal if the article could be wrapped up inside 80Kb
, now the question is what to leave out. It should be easy to notice that what sections of this article are acting as a magnet for unhelpful contributions (i.e. 3.1
and 3.2
). All we are saying is since we already have the spin-off articles and we have almost exactly the same duplicated contents in the spin-off articles of the two Human rights abuses sections, it would be better to just leave them there and — except for the summaries — jettison/merge those contents from this article in order to reduce size.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Reviewing the human rights section (lets do that and then perhaps move on), I think it should not consist of more than two fair-sized paragraphs (three max). One for general info, and one each for the two areas of Kashmir. Thoughts? -- Director ( talk) 08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Unless I am very much mistaken, the title and subject of this thread is the "Human Rights" section.
- Are you being sarcastic? If you are then I am not sure I appreciate this. How can you be mistaken when the heading itself is "Human rights"? That said, I didn't switch to a far larger and more complex subject. You're redundantly exaggerating. I simply cited a reason which is only a part of a broader issue in order to trim the two sections. Enough talk, just do it. If you can then let me do it. The reason I am waiting is I don't wish to "gut it unilaterally" as
Darkness Shines so overtly states. Hence, let's get this over with.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
could conceivably be understood as " sarcasm"- don't tell me what can be conceivably understood as what.
I also recommend you take a break from the "captaincy" of the thread
- And I also recommend you take a break from the habit of condescending. I didn't declare myself as the "authority" or the "captain" as some might like you to believe.
Can we please try first to agree on a rough layout?
- Where have disagreed with you on that so far? I know some of these guys for quite some time now. You hang around for a few months with these people, face the allegations, deal with their chicaneries, pettifoggery and I guarantee you'll be appearing just as authoritative to others. I am slowly reaching the limits of my patience. Please try to understand, this is not the only place where we have interacted in a not-so-productive manner.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
God!! Why not focus on the fucking content? Why take my name in every second sentence that you post here KBB? Why are you commenting on me? How long am I expected to hold off and tolerate this nonsense?
who could very well be a paid individual
- That is your obnoxious POV-based conjecture. (Don't you see anything beyond your dogmatic beliefs?)
What will convince me that Mrt3366 is editing in good faith?
- Nothing will convince you, that's it. I just have to deal with you till the time one of us leaves wiki permanently. I am not going to state anything about you any further because that might not seem civil. You're making this personal KBB. Like you've always done. Let's focus on the content and keep our conjectures and sentiments behind.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 05:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The heading Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's involvement in forming militant groups
is pov? How come? And how is
arbitrary removal valid/necessary here? Should we make it Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's support for militant groups
? If we only make it Musharraf's claims
; it begs the question claims about about what?
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"Please avoid extremeness and bad faith."
- I am deliberately trying to be polite with you and you on the other hand are calling me a bad-faith editor. Do not edit war. Consider yourself warned.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 10:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
"I am deliberately trying to be polite with you", please tell me otherwise??. First you must change your authority behaviour with other editors and on every edit you are sending them edit warring notice. Neither you have any ownership and authority nor you are mentor here. I do not think I have to read again NPOV, may you need?, because in the added passage Musharaf also claims
"world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who according to Musharraf are "innocent civilians", why you don't chose to highlight the title of the section from that passage??. Do you think yourself neutral. The title, "Musharaf's claims" covers both passages, and that is neutrality. I ask you very humbly please be a just contributor as others are. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's involvement in forming militant groups
. It is not a POV to highlight an info that makes the section important in the first place.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)Let's delete/merge the section about Musharraf's claims and create a new section with the following content. I think this content (if needed, after a mild modification) is every bit as relevant and needed in a separate section especially because TWO PAKISTANI HEADS (PRESIDENT Musharraf and Zardari) corroborated the claims:
Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf, stated in an interview, that Pakistani government indeed helped to form underground militant groups to fight against Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations. According to Musharraf it was because ″everybody is interested in strategic deals with India, but Pakistan is always seen as the rogue.″ He also stated that the world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who Musharraf claimed were "innocent civilians". [ref 1]
Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan. [ref 2] The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir. [ref 2] According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon both former members of the National Security Council the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young men in the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks. [ref 3] In 2009, then President Asif Zardari admitted at a conference in Islamabad that in the past Pakistan had created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its geostrategic agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir". [ref 4]
Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices. [ref 5] Militant groups have also kidnapped journalists, tortured and killed them and have intimidated newspapers into not publishing story's on human rights abuses. [ref 6]
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Feel free to weigh in or not. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The source states Similarly, children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs. and is used to support the claim "Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices." what is the problem I don't understand. KBB please admit that you simply want to censor this information from going in by hook or by crook. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Some more about this issue:
About Rs. 2.4 crore are paid out per month by the Inter-Services Intelligence, in order to fund its activities in Jammu and Kashmir. [r 1] Pro-Pakistani groups were reportedly favored over other militant groups. [r 1] Creation of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI. [r 2] [r 3] According to American Intelligence officials, ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT. [r 3] The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir. [r 4]
Feel free to comment on it or suggest any improvements. Thank you all. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
You have recklessly bullied editors by your rollback rights in the recent past. The most recent one [4], you rolled back to your own old edit, killing everything in between by myself, [5] from User:Darkness Shine and MirajMir while only providing explanation in the edit for edit warring from User:MirajMir. This is atrocious. I am looking for avenues and collecting the other evidence to report. Meanwhile, you are requested to stop. Killbillsbrowser ( talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
And BTW I didn't use rollback, I used edit summaries while reverting stop maligning me this way. It's redundant and irrelevant here. Also constant belly-aching about how I am bullish is getting too much for me. I am humbly asking you to stop this behavior as it's not seeming polite. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Nobody thinks they have been involved in the dispute, yet we have a huge section devoted to this, I propose we remove it and add a line or two to a section on militancy in the region. Darkness Shines ( talk) 12:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
For me it's simple:
if there is no reliable source: delete the content.
If there are two reliable sources backing claims that are contesting each other:
state both neutrally.
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
"the section is devoted to saying, well no their not involved at all"- maybe I'm not reading it as you are, but I think it's not exactly same as saying that they are not involved at all. The section has multiple statements that imply a close connection between Al-Qaeda and Kashmir. I am in favor of two sections. No, actually I am not so much against removal of the section "Al-Qaeda involvement" as I am against a vague name of the section which will be inevitably needed to accommodate the contents of this section.
My primary objection is that should we choose as broad a section heading as "militancy" it would be undue. I apprehend, basing upon my experience dealing with these articles, that all sorts of random gibberish and unreliable speculations about non-notable incidents and misrepresentation of sources will be inserted to blur these Presidents' overt and radical admissions. Make no mistake, we won't be able to keep this article in a perennially protected mode nor will we be able to take part in all the discussions. I think there has got to be a more specific section name that indicates — to put it quite bluntly — how Pakistani government is using terrorist organizations to fight Indian troops and also in order to frame Indian side of Kashmir as a turmoil-laden land. Which Two Pakistani Presidents have already admitted on two separate occasions.
I hope I am clear enough. We must present the viewpoints fairly in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. Yes, if Indian presidents and all other reliable intelligence organizations start accepting that India is using terrorism to fight proxy wars in Pakistani-Kashmir, I will accept another section with a heading "Relation between Indian and Militants". Till then I am against any step that requires a blurry name of the section. Thank you. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
DS, I am not asking you to use the word "terrorist" in the heading, am I? Where did you get that impression from? I am simply asking you to create one section dedicated to disseminate information about Pakistan's involvement with the terrorists to pursue disingenuous geo-strategic agenda in Indian-administered Kashmir. In future we might add another section about India's usage of militants if enough number of neutral and credible sources (without apparent COI) state it explicitly. Now, we all know that there are sources which assume the camaraderie-based connection between Pakistani Government and heinous Militants is a fait accompli. All I am saying is that we must not gloss over the difference. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 05:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have found some dead links on this page but don't have sufficient permissions to edit this page. So I'm suggesting the correct links for these dead links. Someone with the necessary permissions should make the edit.
Dalilida ( talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Please add covert support to barbaric infiltrators by Pakistany Army. Otherwise this will be a biased and worthless article. 111.91.75.72 ( talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
This proposal is to prune anything excess of a succinct summary from the Human rights sections and to merge the rest with direct spin-out articles (e.g. Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, etc) of the sections. Our guideline says:
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided
The
article size (141,853 bytes
) currently needs a generous trim and that section 3. Human rights abuse
alone is over 72,000 bytes
in size. If I am not rebutted within a few days I will humbly take it that I have others' tacit approval, albeit I would personally like to get active support on this. All I'm saying is since we already have the spin-out articles and we have almost exactly the same contents duplicated in the spin-outs, let's remove the contents from this bulky article which now takes too long to load on slow connections (trust me I have tried and failed to load!).
Mr T
(Talk?)
(New thread?) 06:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
In the lead of the article I came across this quotation
"The whole of Kashmir nation is standing against these elections, because these elections are not as India claims in the United Nations, that people of Kashmir are representing themselves in these elections, that this is the self determination,"
. Now I have a few questions.
Panun Kashmir, a frontline organisation of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits, has also rejected the ‘self-rule’ and ‘demilitarization’ proposal. It has, inter alia suggested ‘internal reorganisation’ of Jammu and Kashmir, under which, the state is to be divided into four parts, including the ‘union territory of Panun Kashmir’ in the Kashmir valley.
This is definitely a way better written article than the Timeline of Kashmir Conflict. Anyway that the two articles could be merged and have the POV problems on the Timeline article cleaned up? 142.59.203.143 ( talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123
the hanging of Afzal Guru and the ensuing protests should be under recent developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.77.95 ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's discuss these changes first. Diff Thank you, Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Senior Congress leader and member of its Central Working Committee, Makhan Lal Fotedar, in a statement blamed NC President and former chief minister Farooq Abdullah for rigging the 1987 elections. [ [8]] 63.87.61.76 ( talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Done Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Plese add the following to the Article:See also section.
98.23.53.199 ( talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
As per Pakistanis and Kashmiris they are Freedom Fighters. As per India they are terrorist. But as per WP neutrality they are Separatists. Please respect WP neutrality and do not try to impose hate propaganda here.
Miosong (
talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Sock of LanguageXpert
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
39.32.60.220 (
talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I restored your comments which DS had removed without any reason or summary. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the commas from the sentence "India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir, a part of Pakistan." They are grammatically incorrect. This sentence is the first in second paragraph of the "1989 popular insurgency and militancy" section under the Timeline heading. Rglaudell ( talk) 22:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the commas from the sentence "In October 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the Kashmir separatists, terrorists in an interview with The Wall Street Journal." It is grammatically incorrect. This sentence is in the third paragraph of the "1989 popular insurgency and militancy" section under the Timeline heading. Rglaudell ( talk) 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNCIP)" to "Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)." This inaccurate initialism is under the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 heading in the Timeline section. One can follow the link to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan to confirm the abbreviation as UNMOGIP. The UNCIP created the UNMOGIP. Rglaudell ( talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we get reliable casualty figures ? This source gives the following break down, Militants: 22779, Civilians: 14680 and Security Personnel: 6106, for a total of 43565 ( http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/annual_casualties.htm). But the info box currently claims that just the number of civilians killed was about 40000. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations ( talk) 09:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, I have a problem in this section with the statement An interesting and true account of Kashmiri History is also available at the main article History of Kashmir. Firstly, this main article is already quoted at the beginning of the section so does not need to be mentioned again, unless their is some kind of promotion ( WP:PROMO) going on. Plus, I assume that all articles on Wikipedia meets verifiability ( WP:VERIFY) standards, so we don't have to be told that the article is true. Can we remove this statement? Any opinions? -- Wikishagnik ( talk) 11:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Could some one explain me how a part-time journalist and an opinion piece amount to scholarly reference about a topic so big. I hope Ehasbrouck could throw some light on it.... ƬheStrike Σagle 16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I have no desire to engage in what I presume is likely to be a fight over how Wikipedia portrays the unquestionably controversial issue of Kashmir.
But I noticed that an important *issue* was missing from this page. I tried to add a minimal pointer to the issue, simply to alert Wikipedia readers to the fact that this is regarded by many people as an issue, without expressing any opinion on the underlying facts. That's why I worded it as "Some people believe...". Some people might dispute the validity of this belief, but I don't think there is any real question that such a belief is widely held.
So much of the discussion of Kashmir has become so intricate, and so removed into meta-discussion and exegesis of decades of voluminous prior literature, that it is hard to find anything about the issue by an expert that bothers to mention the fundamentals. The fundamental issues as they are seen by the masses are clearer in the demands and marching chants and leaflets of political organizations, but I presume that these would not be welcomed as sources by Wikipedia, even as sources about what people perceive the issues to be.
I cited two sources as evidence that such a belief is widely-held among those observing, commenting on, and analyzing the issue: (1) the text of a talk I was invited to give (as a professional travel journalist and professional human rights activist, someone knowledgeable and with a perspective that is a significant part of the debate, and thus one important to include in that symposium as it is for Wikipedia) at an Ivy League university symposium co-sponsored by multiple academic departments and organizations, first published on my personal Website (self-published articles on which have won awards for investigative journalism in a contest juried by journalism-school faculty) and also reprinted by a significant activist organization representative of widespread opinion among Kashmiris; and (2) a widely read and influential essay by a leading Indian scholar and expert on human rights ( /info/en/?search=K._Balagopal) first published in a leading Indian scholarly journal ( /info/en/?search=Economic_and_Political_Weekly) and reprinted as part of a "Festschrift" in his honor, reflecting the significance widely ascribed by other academics and human rights experts to both the author and the article. If the fact that a point of view is being put forward in EPW and reprinted posthumously in such an online Festschrift to keep it and make it more widely available isn't evidence that it is part of the terms of serious intellectual debate in India -- regardless of whether it is universally agreed with -- I don't know what source would better serve that purpose. Ehasbrouck ( talk) 17:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Title doesn't seem to be neutral. I am not sure if it deserves separate section, it can be merged to any other. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Human3015: Thanks for adding sources. However there is significant distance between what the sources say and what your text says here [9]. Your text involves " synthesis," a concept you need to understand and avoid. You cannot also report what a lone politician says as a statement of fact. It has to be attributed to that source via an inline attribution. But it won't have any weight. You really need a Constitutional lawyer to say that in order to have a proper weight.
I am quite sceptical of your whole project because the Indian Constitution was passed and the J&K Constituent Assembly was formed when India was negotiating with UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and India assured the UN body that the Indian Constitution does not stand in the way of holding a plebiscite. Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm in support of shifting matter of this section in article to another section. Just 4-5 months ago there was a short discussion between OccultZone and admin Philg88 "read here in old archive talk page", where they agreed to shift that matter to another section. There is a sub-section named US President Obama on the Conflict, we can rename it as US Presidents' views on the Conflict and can add Clinton's remark there. Also any sourced material related to views of other former US Presidents on Kashmir conflict can be added there.-- Human3015 22:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I have re-added the CM of J&K's statement with reference in his own words. I think that I made it neutral enough, and thus as the story got extensive coverage, the statement of the CM of an Indian administered state should have a place there. Faizan ( talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
This article name is Kashmir conflict, Regions of former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir which are now administered by India, Pakistan and China are under the scope of this article, but this article largely contains issues related to only Indian administered side, where are more details regarding Human rights issues or elections in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan? We all should try to improve this article, obviously I will give most contribution from reliable sources but still others should also involve in this issue. [14], [15], [16], [17]. There are tonnes of other reliable sources. -- Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Disputed para in the lead is
"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.[19][20][21][22] European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.[23][24][25] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[23]
It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last ten days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation.Whistle blowing is encouraged world wide so whistle blowers opinion should be respected here. 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 05:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I added this from Amnesty international 30 june 2015 report on kashmir https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=669877951&oldid=669854640 but user Kestwol called it nonconstructive. Removal of sourced content restored. Recent Amnesty report on completion of 25 years of armed forces special act is all about kashmir conflict hence no reason for calling it nonconstructive and edit warring. 39.47.134.197 ( talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Please some one read the reference before playing undo button case example of non constructive edits by user kestwol. 39.47.134.197 ( talk) 10:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a growing voice against Indian youth joining army for free food family holidays and liquor for which Andhara Pardesh MP P Ravindra Babu also raised voice but he was then booked by Bihar high court stated times of india. [1] [2]
I included this but one user objected so i thought let us talk on its inclusion. 39.47.134.197 ( talk) 09:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
References