![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template ( Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement) was considered for deletion on 29 May 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
![]() | This template ( Kashmir separatist movement) was considered for deletion on 6 June 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
![]() | This template ( Kashmir separatist movement) was considered for deletion on 26 June 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep for now". |
I think the new title is still not neutral. My suggestion is that it be renamed "Kashmir conflict", which is neutral and in line with our current main article on the situation in that region. -- regentspark ( comment) 10:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The groups I have removed are not separatist groups by any stretch of the imagination, per wp:burden it is for those adding them to prove their contention that these terrorists are seperatists. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this template is going to stay now. Mar4d, please proceed with adding it to the articles you were going through before. Esp, on the ones listed on the template. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I have now had to remove links from this template which have no place here, again. For those restoring the links please meet WP:BURDEN and explain how these links deal with the Kashmir separatist groups. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Media
Mar4d ( talk) 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
(out)Both fail verification. Neither of those articles say that rape is a part of the separatist movement. Nor does it say that separatists were demanding independence due to acts of rape. It says separatists demanded a one day strike for allegations of rape. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
On India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution (1998) p.132, Wirsing defines the Kashmiri separatist movement in two dimensions: one which is pro-Pakistan and the other which favours independence from both countries. In both cases, a defined agenda of the movement is separation from India. From this criteria, observers have divided separatist outfits into two groups, namely Pro-Independence and Pro-Accession (i.e. pro-Pakistan). Pro independence outfits include Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front whereas the pro-accession Kashmiri organisations include Hizbul Mujahideen, Al Jehad, Al Barq, Ikhwan ul-Musalmeen etc. Both factions have certain ideological differences but nevertheless constitute the separatist movement, according to this academic source.
The template will have to be reverted soon to its previous form where pro-accession parties were included. Those objecting need to bear WP:BURDEN and present their case. Mar4d ( talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Since 1990, the north Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been the site of a vicious conflict between Indian security forces and Muslim insurgents demanding independence or accession to Pakistan. As the conflict enters its fourth year, Indian security forces have increasingly targeted civilians in an effort to crush support for the guerilla forces.
— Patricia Gossman, Vincent Iacopino (1993), The Crackdown in Kashmir: Torture of Detainees and Assaults on the Medical Community, pp. 1
Mar4d ( talk) 10:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d ( talk) 04:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the article for now, there should be discussions first here. I believe Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir cover that. It obviously is a point of conflict so better off without the link. Your views are welcome. Samar ( Talk . Contributions) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In the third {{ tfd}} one respondent wrote:
I don't see any explanation here on the talk page that Lashkar-e-Taiba is “disputed content”. I am not an expert on Kashmir -- but I think I know that it is a militant group that focusses on Kashmir. I request those who think there is disputed content that shouldn't be included here, without a discussion to resolve whether it belongs, list those articles names, followed by their explanation as to why it doesn't belong.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In the TfD there seems to be a consensus that all issues should be first discussed on the talk page. Although I still think that the purpose of this template is to push POV, I am suggesting some changes:
I hope that all these suggestion will be taken into consideration. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template ( Jammu and Kashmir freedom movement) was considered for deletion on 29 May 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
![]() | This template ( Kashmir separatist movement) was considered for deletion on 6 June 2012. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
![]() | This template ( Kashmir separatist movement) was considered for deletion on 26 June 2012. The result of the discussion was "keep for now". |
I think the new title is still not neutral. My suggestion is that it be renamed "Kashmir conflict", which is neutral and in line with our current main article on the situation in that region. -- regentspark ( comment) 10:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The groups I have removed are not separatist groups by any stretch of the imagination, per wp:burden it is for those adding them to prove their contention that these terrorists are seperatists. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this template is going to stay now. Mar4d, please proceed with adding it to the articles you were going through before. Esp, on the ones listed on the template. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I have now had to remove links from this template which have no place here, again. For those restoring the links please meet WP:BURDEN and explain how these links deal with the Kashmir separatist groups. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Media
Mar4d ( talk) 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
(out)Both fail verification. Neither of those articles say that rape is a part of the separatist movement. Nor does it say that separatists were demanding independence due to acts of rape. It says separatists demanded a one day strike for allegations of rape. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
On India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution (1998) p.132, Wirsing defines the Kashmiri separatist movement in two dimensions: one which is pro-Pakistan and the other which favours independence from both countries. In both cases, a defined agenda of the movement is separation from India. From this criteria, observers have divided separatist outfits into two groups, namely Pro-Independence and Pro-Accession (i.e. pro-Pakistan). Pro independence outfits include Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front whereas the pro-accession Kashmiri organisations include Hizbul Mujahideen, Al Jehad, Al Barq, Ikhwan ul-Musalmeen etc. Both factions have certain ideological differences but nevertheless constitute the separatist movement, according to this academic source.
The template will have to be reverted soon to its previous form where pro-accession parties were included. Those objecting need to bear WP:BURDEN and present their case. Mar4d ( talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Since 1990, the north Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been the site of a vicious conflict between Indian security forces and Muslim insurgents demanding independence or accession to Pakistan. As the conflict enters its fourth year, Indian security forces have increasingly targeted civilians in an effort to crush support for the guerilla forces.
— Patricia Gossman, Vincent Iacopino (1993), The Crackdown in Kashmir: Torture of Detainees and Assaults on the Medical Community, pp. 1
Mar4d ( talk) 10:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Mar4d ( talk) 04:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the link to the article for now, there should be discussions first here. I believe Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir cover that. It obviously is a point of conflict so better off without the link. Your views are welcome. Samar ( Talk . Contributions) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In the third {{ tfd}} one respondent wrote:
I don't see any explanation here on the talk page that Lashkar-e-Taiba is “disputed content”. I am not an expert on Kashmir -- but I think I know that it is a militant group that focusses on Kashmir. I request those who think there is disputed content that shouldn't be included here, without a discussion to resolve whether it belongs, list those articles names, followed by their explanation as to why it doesn't belong.
Thanks! Geo Swan ( talk) 03:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In the TfD there seems to be a consensus that all issues should be first discussed on the talk page. Although I still think that the purpose of this template is to push POV, I am suggesting some changes:
I hope that all these suggestion will be taken into consideration. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)