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 | → | Archive 8 |
Hello Friends ! in compliance with WP policies, i want a dispute resolution by some neutral WP admin. It all started when i first time read this article i found the following wording in the lead paras;
"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.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.
It looked out of place in the lead because this election dealt only 45% land area of kashmir state which is disputed between india, Pakistan and China. It also looked pro india because it ignored wining pro india chief minister and wining party head comments giving credit to Pakistan and separatists for allowing elections in the state. so i inserted it with indian source reference as follows.
However, elected Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed said, "If God forbid the Hurriyat and the militants tried to disrupt the elections these would not have been as participative as they had been. They (Pakistan) also allowed these elections to take place." Ruling Party president Mehbooba Mufti also defended Mufti's remarks.
Then what happened could be seen in detail on page history. Different tactics were used to remove these lines. My question to all my friends is "Are we good faith neutral WP community or "Are we like fraud lawyers who manipulate rules/law to achieve their goals. Might is right Or right is right ? Thanks. 39.47.121.0 ( talk) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The news is not too important for this article, you can add this in the page Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 but not in this particular page., and kautilya you don't have to be too much over the top neutral. Cosmic Emperor 04:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Doesn't matter what Mufti says: You like the statement of that IP then add it to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014. You very well know terrorists and separatists will always try their level best to disrupt elections; but they were not successful as BSF, CRPF and Indian Army did their best to stop Pakistani terrorists from entering Kashmir. Now in a similar situation, are you going to add these following reliable references in the wiki page of Taj Mahal?
Read the above links and add them to Taj Mahal if bogus claims by politicians(without any evidence) is so important for you.
Mufti was lying and so are these people. Cosmic Emperor 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Calm down Human3015 WP is not a battle ground. We are community so accept others insertions which are highly sourced and relevant. Do not worry Arbitration will definitely find extensive history of aggressive edit-warring and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines in case of all including Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor. Please also see /info/en/?search=User_talk:Human3015#Those_users 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 09:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Reminder that this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Also, any edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise, [1] are highly discouraged. -- NeilN talk to me 11:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 instead of replying to your threatening and harassing remarks; Respecting WP gratitude i leave this investigation on administrators; I will definitely avail arbitration committee if misuse of editing rights on this article or other indo pak articles are not stopped; I am confident about WP arbitration committee fairness; Still we have time to refine our selves free from ethnic or religious or national mindsets of partiality; If we analyse edit history of this page or other indop pak page in last two year following things are evident;
1. Whenever some one edit with pro kashmiri/pakistani insertion. One of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Unsourced" 2. If he provides source then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Not a reliable source" 3. If he provides reliable source then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Not a Newspaper" 4. If he re-edits to comply with WP not a news paper then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "No Concensus take to talk page" 5. In the mean while on the basis of three revert rule your group make page protected. 6. If he tries talk page consensus you all group editors converge and deny consensus. 7. Then you provoke that person in to heat of the moment and get him banned.
Brothers such people in real life are called "FRAUD" and CHEATERS". I hope you guys are not such insults so let the investigation begin from some good human because if there is evil in the world then there is some great humans as well. In the end i say sorry if my words hurt some one but let us be fair on WP RESPECTS 39.47.50.14 ( talk) 09:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, everybody, the matter is now referred to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please go there to make your comments. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
After listening to the arguments from all sides, Steven Zhang made the following recommendations:
After further argumentation from the disputants, he concluded:
In my opinion, it would be a shame not to implement the considered opinion of the moderator. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
DRN on election 2014 para in the lead failed but Modrator Steven Zhang recomended that relevant sections be stripped down to a barebones fact only version as he've suggested before wider community input through perhaps RFC is sought.
RFC from IP 39.47.11 as follows
"Participation in national election was low as compare to all Indian states [1] but in state election highest since disputed elections of 1989 [2] [3] for which Chief minister gave credit to Pakistan and separatist [4] [5] which was criticized by Bhartia Janta Party and opposition parties in national assembly but he stood by his words [6] and her party chairman also defended his comments [7] "
Find below table of contrasting positions of each party fully covered in proposed compromise
Issue | Want included with some conditionility | Not included |
---|---|---|
National election 2014 in article | IP 115.... ,Kautaliya3 ,IP 39.... ,Thomas.W | Human3015, Shrikanthv |
State election 2014 in article | Human3015,Kautaliya3,Thomas.W | IP 115... , IP 39....,Shrikanthv |
Refrence of 25 years highest | Human3015,Kautaliya3,Thomas.W | IP 115... , IP 39....,Shrikanthv |
CM statement | IP 115.... ,Kautaliya3, IP 39...., Faizan,Thomas.W | Human3015,Shrikanthv |
CM opposition | Human3015,Thomas.W | IP 115... ,IP 39....,Shrikanthv |
— 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References
In recent edits IP deleted EU's version from the lead calling it WP:UNDUE and saying that all parties were agree on deleting EU's comment on DRN. But all parties were agree only if IPs also agree that Mufti's statement is also WP:UNDUE. But IP who deleted EU's version same IP is doing RfC for Mufti's version and demanding support for it calling it as "version that satisfy everyone". So there is chance of his version may get accepted because he still didn't closed Mufti's issue and demanding support for his version. So I'm restoring pre-dispute version untill this Mufti's issue get solved, because if in any case Mufti's statement get into lead then with same logic EU's statement should also be there. So i;m restoring pre-dispute version untill IPs also accepts that Mufti's statement is WP:UNDUE. We were agree on deleting EU's statement only if Mufti's statement should also not be included, but here RfC is going on for that. -- Human3015 knock knock • 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
WP Un due or what ever other reasons It is as per DRN modrator steve decision while he concluded DRN . Please refer to last concluding para reproduced as follows " I'm closing this dispute as failed, for a few reasons. The main reason is that my assessment of the dispute is that there are involved editors that may have personal opinions here which are not able to be reconciled with Wikipedia policy, and thus an attempt to conduct dispute resolution may be futile. I would strongly recommend the proposals I suggested be implemented (proposals included deleting EU), with further community input sought on the alternatives for inclusion, but for now, this discussion is over." tagging "Closed due to irreconcilable differences between parties. I also believe there are some real-world beliefs here that are getting in the way of DR. I recommend the relevant sections be stripped down to a barebones, fact only version as I've suggested before wider community input (through perhaps an RFC is sought)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where in DRN I used language that was so unclear that my perspective or views could have been so confused that it was assumed that I never rejected the issue of Sayeed's statement as per what you previously said. I disagree that the issue of the statement is unresolved - it is not necessary for all (or in fact, any of) the parties to agree on a matter for it to be resolved if Wikipedia policy is clear, a localised consensus cannot override a site wide policy. In this situation, the policy that applies is WP:UNDUE, specifically this passage - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, [...]. In this situation, the opinion of Sayeed is in the vastly limited minority, references quoted point to their opinion being widely disparaged and rejected, so it does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm still an uninvolved editor as I have no stake in this article other than ensuring that Wikipedia's core principles are held to, and often do dispute resolution outside of DRN. Seeing that the edit warring has continued once the DRN was closed I feel it necessary to keep an eye on this talk page, and request the assistance of administrators to keep this conflict under control as needed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
These Ips must be blocked for personal attacks. Silver Samurai 14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
39.47.115.119 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), Thanks for sharing with us your interest in the issue. I would encourage you to use your interest to find enough reliable sources to support the views you would like to be included. To highlight Steven Zhang's guidance to you, If you can show that a significant majority of others involved in the matter (the state election) have also supported his statement/point of view, then undue would not be an issue here. So that is what you need to do as per Wikipedia policies. There this matter should end. But you are welcome to add discussion to the 2014 J&K Elections page to highlight the kind of issues that the Kashmiri electorate faced in this election. We would be very happy to support you in such efforts. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully protected this article a few days ago because of the edit warring. If edit warring resumes after protection expires, I will be looking at who has productively participated on the talk page and will probably hand out blocks per WP:ARBIP accordingly as long term full protection is not an option. A few comments to focus the discussion: This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. Editors might want to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature. Second, I noticed that PR Newswire is used as a source. This type of reference should be treated as a WP:SPS as it is a press release, not a independently written news story, and should be used very sparingly. I see no reason why it should be used in this article. If editors wish to open a proper RFC and need help, please let me know. -- NeilN talk to me 00:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no General in the Indian Army with the name Pranav Movva .Who is Pranav Movva? KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of content especially in Indian view and Pakistan view which is WP:OR and source does not directly relate it with topic and seams to be Original research of the editors So we have to remove it because "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies of Wikipedia. HIAS ( talk) 08:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for being the part of discussion,So let me explain one by one
HIAS ( talk) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: I want to apologize for my Previous edit ,actually i was confused by the statement "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." mentioned on Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources, Dead links, Poorly sourced sites, and the Material which was a little bit different from the topic. Since i am a new editor so i expect suggestions from fellow editors. Thank you HIAS ( talk) 11:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: I think this material [4] is WP:UNDUE. This is a book on a large number of border conflicts with a two-page summary on Jammu and Kashmir, with no sources given. We can't be sure of the author's depth of knowledge of the dispute. On the fact of it, there haven't been "many attempts" at resolving the Kashmir dispute. After the 1948 resolution, pretty much nothing happened. It is also not true that no "substantial progress" has been made. The Simla Agreement where the two countries agreed on a Line of Control, which is now considered "sacrosanct" internationally is substantial progress. Also, your page number is wrong. There is nothing Kashmir-related on p. 68. I can't find a mention of "UN charter" anywhere in the book. So I intend to delete these additions. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Hitch Hicking Across Sahara:, this material [5] doesn't make sense. The bullet points begin with "In short, Pakistan holds that...". Your insertion is neither "in short" nor is it the voice of "Pakistan." It is just a private columnist who is not a reliable source any way. So this is no good. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I made addition with multiple Indian and Pakistani sources for J & K high court decision . New additions by Kautilya and others have no cross verifiable nuetral sources. 39.32.191.139 ( talk) 06:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
39.32.222.65 Your reasons for the revert [6]? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
1) J&K constituent assembly is governed by J&K constitution whose preamble makes it clear that it gains its legitimacy from the Union of India and the Constitution of India.
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves-JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among us all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this seventeenth day of November, 1956, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."
-Preamble of Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. [1]
2) India has not only Article 370, but similar ones like Article 371A for north-eastern states. Does that mean that they do not belong to India? What rubbish!! [2] Ghatus ( talk) 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
@ NA122: Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "substantial changes" is not a reason enough to revert here [10]. If you reinstate deleted material the WP:BURDEN to defend it transfers it to you. You need to demonstrate that my reasons for deleting viz, "Deleting rehash of accession already covered in the earlier section along with WP:OR and editorializing" are not sound. Please do it now, or self-revert. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
39.47.97.40, why don't you discuss your issues [12] on the talk page? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Those editors opposing the changes - please state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so. -- NeilN talk to me 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN: despite your continious efforts to calm every user specially Kautilya3 here [13] and Human3015 [14] here they still persisting with blame game here [15]
As no one has replied to the section above, I will be reducing the full protection to semi protection and have applied a WP:1RR editing restriction until December 31, 2015. -- NeilN talk to me 13:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We all can make sicere efforts to resolve content dispute. Please no one try to disturb pre dispute position. NA122 ( talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Conduct discussion
|
---|
Avenger has made this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=686475498&oldid=686475046. Although all this was already sorted out but respecting 3R i am not un doing Avenger. NA122 ( talk) 09:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Relax everybody. As of now, I don't see any content dispute. The Daily Pakistan bit was added by an IP and reverted. I reinstated it. So, what "dispute" are you talking about? If anybody has exceeded 3RR, please report them at WP:AN3. This talk page is for discussing article content, not conduct issues. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Folks, the new content that I have been writing [19] has been repeatedly deleted six times in the last few days without giving a single word of justification! Is anybody going to raise content issues? Otherwise, I am minded to take all of you to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ NA122: You can discuss your new edits to your heart's content. But you haven't yet explained the reason for your reverts of my edits on 15 October [21], and twice on the 19 October [22], [23]. Your edit-warring caused the page to be full-protected and NeilN advised you to discuss the issues with that content on this talk page. You have not yet done so. It is highly improper to make new edits on the old version of the article, before justifying your past reverts. For one last time, what is your objection to the content you have reverted? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3 one reason of my revert was restore pre dispute version and make sincere efforts to solve disputes by disscussing every new edit/dispute using talk page and . two Page was not protected due to my edit war because i only made two reverts (That can not be termed as edit war). Those two edits were not suppourting any point of view neither IPS never indians. Page was protected by three efforts Kautilya3 then Human3015 again Kautilya3 vs IP edits. three disputed content between IPs and Indians editors has multiple topics so it is very difficult to give nod to all edits in totality. I as a nuetral editor would recommend that the new insertor should take concensus topic by topic. Divide disputed content in to topics and then disscuss policy issues. other wise it will remain complex editing with possible dispute and edit war by parties (IPs vs Indians). You can follow benchmark set by me (three new sections for each new edit). Best of luck. NA122 ( talk) 10:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
NA122, because there were multiple edit wars going on simultaneously, you seem to believe that your edit-warring and disruption have not been noticed. Here are my edits that you have reverted multiple times:
You reverted these edits again at 09:44, 19 October 2015 (after Human3015 reinstated them) with the edit summary "CAUTION: Human3015 you constantly re-inserting the things which other users are disscussing on talk page. I request you to not misuse TW to edit disruptivly''".
Contrary to the claim, you have not discussed any of these edits so far. I have asked you provide justifications for the reverts at 10:34, 15 October, 17:02, 20 October, 08:58, 21 October, 10:51, 23 October, 15:01, 23 October, 21:00, 23 October and again this morning 09:41, 24 October.
You claimed at 05:43, 19 October that 24 hours was not enough for you to respond. But 4 days had already passed by then and further 5 days since then. You have not yet given any justification.
NeilN has warned you (as one of those opposing the changes), to "state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so" at 13:41, 19 October and noted at 13:47, 23 October that no one has replied.
Due to your failure to justify your reverts and your new edits this morning (as if that chapter had been concluded), I have no choice but to reinstate my version of the article that you have ransacked. You are aware that this page is under discretionary sanctions, and you have also been notified of ARBIPA sanctions. Any further disruption by you will be dealt with with all the seriousness it deserves. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Rebel vs MilitantSource term restored "Muslim rebels" as done by Kautilya3 in his 16 October edit. I am adding talk page section for inviting opinions. NA122 ( talk) 06:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
2008 electionsLink to edit: [24] Since lead also covers 2014 election. Too much of 2008 election in the lead. moved to relevant section. Talk page section added for opinions. NA122 ( talk) 06:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) LeT and RussiaLink to edit: [25] My last edit is relevant for LeT and russian stance. Adding Talk page section for disscussions. NA122 ( talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:HISTRS "Articles that deal with current events, or events occurring entirely in the previous one or two years are not regarded as historical articles, since they have not been studied by historians. When historians first begin to write about an event, then it should be regarded as a historical article."
@ Human3015: events happened in 21st century or in 2001 are History by this defination. HIAS ( talk) 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ TalhaZubairButt: I am afraid I have several problems with the new material you added today [26]:
Consequently, I am reverting your edit, and I hope you will discuss these matters to the full before contemplating their reinsertion. I am also quite disappointed that you take such liberties in a highly sensitive article like this! - Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 15 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Spirit Ethanol: I was surprised by your revert. Did you notice that my edit summary [28] has clearly stated " newspapers are only reliable for news, not history?" Are you disputing this? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 50 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Not much mention of China but un necessary details
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
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 | → | Archive 8 |
Hello Friends ! in compliance with WP policies, i want a dispute resolution by some neutral WP admin. It all started when i first time read this article i found the following wording in the lead paras;
"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.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.
It looked out of place in the lead because this election dealt only 45% land area of kashmir state which is disputed between india, Pakistan and China. It also looked pro india because it ignored wining pro india chief minister and wining party head comments giving credit to Pakistan and separatists for allowing elections in the state. so i inserted it with indian source reference as follows.
However, elected Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed said, "If God forbid the Hurriyat and the militants tried to disrupt the elections these would not have been as participative as they had been. They (Pakistan) also allowed these elections to take place." Ruling Party president Mehbooba Mufti also defended Mufti's remarks.
Then what happened could be seen in detail on page history. Different tactics were used to remove these lines. My question to all my friends is "Are we good faith neutral WP community or "Are we like fraud lawyers who manipulate rules/law to achieve their goals. Might is right Or right is right ? Thanks. 39.47.121.0 ( talk) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The news is not too important for this article, you can add this in the page Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 but not in this particular page., and kautilya you don't have to be too much over the top neutral. Cosmic Emperor 04:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Doesn't matter what Mufti says: You like the statement of that IP then add it to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014. You very well know terrorists and separatists will always try their level best to disrupt elections; but they were not successful as BSF, CRPF and Indian Army did their best to stop Pakistani terrorists from entering Kashmir. Now in a similar situation, are you going to add these following reliable references in the wiki page of Taj Mahal?
Read the above links and add them to Taj Mahal if bogus claims by politicians(without any evidence) is so important for you.
Mufti was lying and so are these people. Cosmic Emperor 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Calm down Human3015 WP is not a battle ground. We are community so accept others insertions which are highly sourced and relevant. Do not worry Arbitration will definitely find extensive history of aggressive edit-warring and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines in case of all including Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor. Please also see /info/en/?search=User_talk:Human3015#Those_users 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 09:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Reminder that this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Also, any edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise, [1] are highly discouraged. -- NeilN talk to me 11:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 instead of replying to your threatening and harassing remarks; Respecting WP gratitude i leave this investigation on administrators; I will definitely avail arbitration committee if misuse of editing rights on this article or other indo pak articles are not stopped; I am confident about WP arbitration committee fairness; Still we have time to refine our selves free from ethnic or religious or national mindsets of partiality; If we analyse edit history of this page or other indop pak page in last two year following things are evident;
1. Whenever some one edit with pro kashmiri/pakistani insertion. One of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Unsourced" 2. If he provides source then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Not a reliable source" 3. If he provides reliable source then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Not a Newspaper" 4. If he re-edits to comply with WP not a news paper then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "No Concensus take to talk page" 5. In the mean while on the basis of three revert rule your group make page protected. 6. If he tries talk page consensus you all group editors converge and deny consensus. 7. Then you provoke that person in to heat of the moment and get him banned.
Brothers such people in real life are called "FRAUD" and CHEATERS". I hope you guys are not such insults so let the investigation begin from some good human because if there is evil in the world then there is some great humans as well. In the end i say sorry if my words hurt some one but let us be fair on WP RESPECTS 39.47.50.14 ( talk) 09:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, everybody, the matter is now referred to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please go there to make your comments. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
After listening to the arguments from all sides, Steven Zhang made the following recommendations:
After further argumentation from the disputants, he concluded:
In my opinion, it would be a shame not to implement the considered opinion of the moderator. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
DRN on election 2014 para in the lead failed but Modrator Steven Zhang recomended that relevant sections be stripped down to a barebones fact only version as he've suggested before wider community input through perhaps RFC is sought.
RFC from IP 39.47.11 as follows
"Participation in national election was low as compare to all Indian states [1] but in state election highest since disputed elections of 1989 [2] [3] for which Chief minister gave credit to Pakistan and separatist [4] [5] which was criticized by Bhartia Janta Party and opposition parties in national assembly but he stood by his words [6] and her party chairman also defended his comments [7] "
Find below table of contrasting positions of each party fully covered in proposed compromise
Issue | Want included with some conditionility | Not included |
---|---|---|
National election 2014 in article | IP 115.... ,Kautaliya3 ,IP 39.... ,Thomas.W | Human3015, Shrikanthv |
State election 2014 in article | Human3015,Kautaliya3,Thomas.W | IP 115... , IP 39....,Shrikanthv |
Refrence of 25 years highest | Human3015,Kautaliya3,Thomas.W | IP 115... , IP 39....,Shrikanthv |
CM statement | IP 115.... ,Kautaliya3, IP 39...., Faizan,Thomas.W | Human3015,Shrikanthv |
CM opposition | Human3015,Thomas.W | IP 115... ,IP 39....,Shrikanthv |
— 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
References
In recent edits IP deleted EU's version from the lead calling it WP:UNDUE and saying that all parties were agree on deleting EU's comment on DRN. But all parties were agree only if IPs also agree that Mufti's statement is also WP:UNDUE. But IP who deleted EU's version same IP is doing RfC for Mufti's version and demanding support for it calling it as "version that satisfy everyone". So there is chance of his version may get accepted because he still didn't closed Mufti's issue and demanding support for his version. So I'm restoring pre-dispute version untill this Mufti's issue get solved, because if in any case Mufti's statement get into lead then with same logic EU's statement should also be there. So i;m restoring pre-dispute version untill IPs also accepts that Mufti's statement is WP:UNDUE. We were agree on deleting EU's statement only if Mufti's statement should also not be included, but here RfC is going on for that. -- Human3015 knock knock • 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
WP Un due or what ever other reasons It is as per DRN modrator steve decision while he concluded DRN . Please refer to last concluding para reproduced as follows " I'm closing this dispute as failed, for a few reasons. The main reason is that my assessment of the dispute is that there are involved editors that may have personal opinions here which are not able to be reconciled with Wikipedia policy, and thus an attempt to conduct dispute resolution may be futile. I would strongly recommend the proposals I suggested be implemented (proposals included deleting EU), with further community input sought on the alternatives for inclusion, but for now, this discussion is over." tagging "Closed due to irreconcilable differences between parties. I also believe there are some real-world beliefs here that are getting in the way of DR. I recommend the relevant sections be stripped down to a barebones, fact only version as I've suggested before wider community input (through perhaps an RFC is sought)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 ( talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where in DRN I used language that was so unclear that my perspective or views could have been so confused that it was assumed that I never rejected the issue of Sayeed's statement as per what you previously said. I disagree that the issue of the statement is unresolved - it is not necessary for all (or in fact, any of) the parties to agree on a matter for it to be resolved if Wikipedia policy is clear, a localised consensus cannot override a site wide policy. In this situation, the policy that applies is WP:UNDUE, specifically this passage - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, [...]. In this situation, the opinion of Sayeed is in the vastly limited minority, references quoted point to their opinion being widely disparaged and rejected, so it does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm still an uninvolved editor as I have no stake in this article other than ensuring that Wikipedia's core principles are held to, and often do dispute resolution outside of DRN. Seeing that the edit warring has continued once the DRN was closed I feel it necessary to keep an eye on this talk page, and request the assistance of administrators to keep this conflict under control as needed. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 06:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
These Ips must be blocked for personal attacks. Silver Samurai 14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
39.47.115.119 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), Thanks for sharing with us your interest in the issue. I would encourage you to use your interest to find enough reliable sources to support the views you would like to be included. To highlight Steven Zhang's guidance to you, If you can show that a significant majority of others involved in the matter (the state election) have also supported his statement/point of view, then undue would not be an issue here. So that is what you need to do as per Wikipedia policies. There this matter should end. But you are welcome to add discussion to the 2014 J&K Elections page to highlight the kind of issues that the Kashmiri electorate faced in this election. We would be very happy to support you in such efforts. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully protected this article a few days ago because of the edit warring. If edit warring resumes after protection expires, I will be looking at who has productively participated on the talk page and will probably hand out blocks per WP:ARBIP accordingly as long term full protection is not an option. A few comments to focus the discussion: This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. Editors might want to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature. Second, I noticed that PR Newswire is used as a source. This type of reference should be treated as a WP:SPS as it is a press release, not a independently written news story, and should be used very sparingly. I see no reason why it should be used in this article. If editors wish to open a proper RFC and need help, please let me know. -- NeilN talk to me 00:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no General in the Indian Army with the name Pranav Movva .Who is Pranav Movva? KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 11:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of content especially in Indian view and Pakistan view which is WP:OR and source does not directly relate it with topic and seams to be Original research of the editors So we have to remove it because "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies of Wikipedia. HIAS ( talk) 08:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for being the part of discussion,So let me explain one by one
HIAS ( talk) 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: I want to apologize for my Previous edit ,actually i was confused by the statement "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." mentioned on Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources, Dead links, Poorly sourced sites, and the Material which was a little bit different from the topic. Since i am a new editor so i expect suggestions from fellow editors. Thank you HIAS ( talk) 11:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: I think this material [4] is WP:UNDUE. This is a book on a large number of border conflicts with a two-page summary on Jammu and Kashmir, with no sources given. We can't be sure of the author's depth of knowledge of the dispute. On the fact of it, there haven't been "many attempts" at resolving the Kashmir dispute. After the 1948 resolution, pretty much nothing happened. It is also not true that no "substantial progress" has been made. The Simla Agreement where the two countries agreed on a Line of Control, which is now considered "sacrosanct" internationally is substantial progress. Also, your page number is wrong. There is nothing Kashmir-related on p. 68. I can't find a mention of "UN charter" anywhere in the book. So I intend to delete these additions. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@ Hitch Hicking Across Sahara:, this material [5] doesn't make sense. The bullet points begin with "In short, Pakistan holds that...". Your insertion is neither "in short" nor is it the voice of "Pakistan." It is just a private columnist who is not a reliable source any way. So this is no good. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I made addition with multiple Indian and Pakistani sources for J & K high court decision . New additions by Kautilya and others have no cross verifiable nuetral sources. 39.32.191.139 ( talk) 06:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
39.32.222.65 Your reasons for the revert [6]? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
1) J&K constituent assembly is governed by J&K constitution whose preamble makes it clear that it gains its legitimacy from the Union of India and the Constitution of India.
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves-JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among us all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this seventeenth day of November, 1956, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."
-Preamble of Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. [1]
2) India has not only Article 370, but similar ones like Article 371A for north-eastern states. Does that mean that they do not belong to India? What rubbish!! [2] Ghatus ( talk) 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
@ NA122: Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "substantial changes" is not a reason enough to revert here [10]. If you reinstate deleted material the WP:BURDEN to defend it transfers it to you. You need to demonstrate that my reasons for deleting viz, "Deleting rehash of accession already covered in the earlier section along with WP:OR and editorializing" are not sound. Please do it now, or self-revert. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
39.47.97.40, why don't you discuss your issues [12] on the talk page? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Those editors opposing the changes - please state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so. -- NeilN talk to me 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ NeilN: despite your continious efforts to calm every user specially Kautilya3 here [13] and Human3015 [14] here they still persisting with blame game here [15]
As no one has replied to the section above, I will be reducing the full protection to semi protection and have applied a WP:1RR editing restriction until December 31, 2015. -- NeilN talk to me 13:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We all can make sicere efforts to resolve content dispute. Please no one try to disturb pre dispute position. NA122 ( talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Conduct discussion
|
---|
Avenger has made this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=686475498&oldid=686475046. Although all this was already sorted out but respecting 3R i am not un doing Avenger. NA122 ( talk) 09:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Relax everybody. As of now, I don't see any content dispute. The Daily Pakistan bit was added by an IP and reverted. I reinstated it. So, what "dispute" are you talking about? If anybody has exceeded 3RR, please report them at WP:AN3. This talk page is for discussing article content, not conduct issues. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Folks, the new content that I have been writing [19] has been repeatedly deleted six times in the last few days without giving a single word of justification! Is anybody going to raise content issues? Otherwise, I am minded to take all of you to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@ NA122: You can discuss your new edits to your heart's content. But you haven't yet explained the reason for your reverts of my edits on 15 October [21], and twice on the 19 October [22], [23]. Your edit-warring caused the page to be full-protected and NeilN advised you to discuss the issues with that content on this talk page. You have not yet done so. It is highly improper to make new edits on the old version of the article, before justifying your past reverts. For one last time, what is your objection to the content you have reverted? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3 one reason of my revert was restore pre dispute version and make sincere efforts to solve disputes by disscussing every new edit/dispute using talk page and . two Page was not protected due to my edit war because i only made two reverts (That can not be termed as edit war). Those two edits were not suppourting any point of view neither IPS never indians. Page was protected by three efforts Kautilya3 then Human3015 again Kautilya3 vs IP edits. three disputed content between IPs and Indians editors has multiple topics so it is very difficult to give nod to all edits in totality. I as a nuetral editor would recommend that the new insertor should take concensus topic by topic. Divide disputed content in to topics and then disscuss policy issues. other wise it will remain complex editing with possible dispute and edit war by parties (IPs vs Indians). You can follow benchmark set by me (three new sections for each new edit). Best of luck. NA122 ( talk) 10:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
NA122, because there were multiple edit wars going on simultaneously, you seem to believe that your edit-warring and disruption have not been noticed. Here are my edits that you have reverted multiple times:
You reverted these edits again at 09:44, 19 October 2015 (after Human3015 reinstated them) with the edit summary "CAUTION: Human3015 you constantly re-inserting the things which other users are disscussing on talk page. I request you to not misuse TW to edit disruptivly''".
Contrary to the claim, you have not discussed any of these edits so far. I have asked you provide justifications for the reverts at 10:34, 15 October, 17:02, 20 October, 08:58, 21 October, 10:51, 23 October, 15:01, 23 October, 21:00, 23 October and again this morning 09:41, 24 October.
You claimed at 05:43, 19 October that 24 hours was not enough for you to respond. But 4 days had already passed by then and further 5 days since then. You have not yet given any justification.
NeilN has warned you (as one of those opposing the changes), to "state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so" at 13:41, 19 October and noted at 13:47, 23 October that no one has replied.
Due to your failure to justify your reverts and your new edits this morning (as if that chapter had been concluded), I have no choice but to reinstate my version of the article that you have ransacked. You are aware that this page is under discretionary sanctions, and you have also been notified of ARBIPA sanctions. Any further disruption by you will be dealt with with all the seriousness it deserves. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Rebel vs MilitantSource term restored "Muslim rebels" as done by Kautilya3 in his 16 October edit. I am adding talk page section for inviting opinions. NA122 ( talk) 06:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
2008 electionsLink to edit: [24] Since lead also covers 2014 election. Too much of 2008 election in the lead. moved to relevant section. Talk page section added for opinions. NA122 ( talk) 06:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) LeT and RussiaLink to edit: [25] My last edit is relevant for LeT and russian stance. Adding Talk page section for disscussions. NA122 ( talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WP:HISTRS "Articles that deal with current events, or events occurring entirely in the previous one or two years are not regarded as historical articles, since they have not been studied by historians. When historians first begin to write about an event, then it should be regarded as a historical article."
@ Human3015: events happened in 21st century or in 2001 are History by this defination. HIAS ( talk) 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@ TalhaZubairButt: I am afraid I have several problems with the new material you added today [26]:
Consequently, I am reverting your edit, and I hope you will discuss these matters to the full before contemplating their reinsertion. I am also quite disappointed that you take such liberties in a highly sensitive article like this! - Kautilya3 ( talk) 02:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 15 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Spirit Ethanol: I was surprised by your revert. Did you notice that my edit summary [28] has clearly stated " newspapers are only reliable for news, not history?" Are you disputing this? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 50 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Not much mention of China but un necessary details
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)