Talk:Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent revert regarding Pakistan Army

@Human3015: This was an unexplained revert: [1]. Please discuss you reasons here. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, yes, i have had explained it earlier and in recent edit too, User Mar4d was not taking this matter to talk even after repeated requests. He is against writing about role of Pakistan army in Kashmir. Its already a neutral point of view. Role of Indian army is written, role of separatist is written so does role of Pakistan army is written. --Human3015 10:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d gave a pretty clear explanation in his edit summary. But you didn't say anything in your revert. So, it is your turn to give a response. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I have given explanation in my recent edit. His claim is that "intentional or unintentional killings in ceasefire violations is not human rights violations", do you agree with that?? Then Indian army kills some militants in Kashmir and along with that "intentionally or unintentionally" some civilians gets killed, so is it human rights violations or not?? --Human3015 11:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

We have reliable sources labelling the Indian action as human rights violation. Do you have reliable sources doing so for the Pakistani action? Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, if you see edit history, Mar4d just don't want word Pakistan army in this article, otherwise he linked word "Indian army" to Indian army. But here I think I'm not biased, here i have not deleted a single ill sourced thing which are against Indian army yet, many of them not well sourced. Just to achieve NPOV I added just one line of killings of Kashmiris by Pakistan army with proper references, and he started claming that it is not NPOV. Please read the sources --Human3015 11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You are still dodging the question. Is there a reliable source that labels these actions as a human rights violation? If not, you can't say it. That is original research. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying that I already given reliable sources. If you think that killings of civilians is not human rights violations then many things in this article are subject to deletion. --Human3015 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't given a single source where the phrase "human rights" appears. If you don't have any such source, then I suggest you self-revert your revert and reinstate Mar4d's version. If you want to challenge the other material in the article, you can do so separately. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Human rights?

@Kautilya3:, can we recheck all sources in this article and those news where they says Indian army killed some civilians but don't uses word "human rights violations" in the news, we should delete that. Same applies for militants, all bomb blasts news where they don't mention "human rights violations" are subject to delete. We have to rewrite entire article. This article is full of synthesis. --Human3015 11:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, many news saying that Indian army raped some women but news specifically don't mention that its "human rights violations", so should we delete such kind of material from the article as its pure form of synthesis work?? --Human3015 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Mar4d:, I will give another example, Sub section "Central reserve police force" in this article says "CRPF killed 40 unarmed civilians", and they have attached 4 news sources, but none of the source says that its "human rights violation" so its pure synthesis. If you say that "Pakistan army killing Kashmiri civilians" should be deleted from the article then all such material related to militants and Indian army should get deleted. --Human3015 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Mar4d:, I will self revert "Pakistan army" thing, but as same rule applies to everyone, i will also delete material related to Indian army and Militants where they don't mention phrase "Human rights" in sourced news. Is it ok? Should we declare "consensus has been made"? --Human3015 12:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, glad to see that you are retracting. Regarding the Indian army actions, it would be appropriate to wait for Mar4d or other editors of this page to respond. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Like I said in the edit summary, ceasefire violations happen all the time across international border. Unfortunately, civilians some times get caught (usually unintentionally) in the crossfire. However, I fail to see what that has to do with systematic human rights violations. There isn't any source which calls ceasefire issues as human rights abuses. The Indian Army has fired across the border into Pakistani Punjab, that would be like creating an article on Human rights abuses in Punjab and saying the Indian Army is carrying out human rights abuses there. It's unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, Jammu and Kashmir is administered by India, not by the Pakistan Army. So the Pakistani military is not exactly a party to the human rights issues which happen inside Jammu and Kashmir. Border conflicts don't come under that category like I said above. Mar4d (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, How you can be so sure that Pak army kills civilians "unintentionally" and Indian army kills "intentionally" or "Systematically"?? Do you have any source regarding this? Here question is "killings of Kashmiri people". If you want create new page on Punjab then go ahead, no problem, we will discuss about that page in talk of that page. If you think that killings by Pak army is not human rights violations then same applied to Militants and Indian army as policy of NPOV. --Human3015 15:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, and you are saying J & K is ruled by India so India is party of Human rights issues, ok, does J & K is ruled by Militants? Kashmir is not ruled or administered by militants still we are mentioning them just because they kill Kashmiri civilians. Many of these militant groups are based in Azad Kashmir and supported by Pak army and ISI, I can give hundreds of reliable sources of it from International media, still I'm not yet writing this in article, its there in Kashmir conflict article. We can write this too. Here I'm writing only about killings of kashmiris by Pak army. They infiltrate border, come to Indian territory and targets civilians. --Human3015 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me break this down simply: this page is about the conflict between the Indian military and the Kashmiri separatists, the two opposing parties in the conflict inside Jammu and Kashmir, and the human rights abuses committed by the involved parties against Kashmiri civilians. This article is not about border ceasefire violations which are unrelated. If you want to read about border conflicts, you can refer to articles like Indo-Pakistani wars or 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes etc. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, to be more simple, "conflict between the Indian military and the Kashmiri separatists" is issue of article Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, this article relates with Human rights abuse on Kashmiri civilians, its not about human rights abuse of separatists. Moreover, because of Pak firing on border hundreds of villages has been vacated and those people are living in camps. I can give you source for that. This article includes sections regarding "Indian army" and "Militants"m this article also deserves separate section on "Pakistan army". Pak army is not only killing and injuring Kashmiri people but also thousands of people living in camps. --Human3015 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Mar4d:, read these news, Pakistan army not only kills Kashmiri civilians but also 10000 villagers vacated and people living in camps. Pakistani troops continue firing; over 10,000 frightened villagers abandon homes in Kashmir also Pakistan's shelling forces 7000 villagers to desert homes along International Border Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pakistan-ceasefire-violation-villagers-evacuated-samba-kathua-jammu-kashmir/1/411555.html. I think "Pakistan army" needs separate section in this article. What say?? --Human3015 17:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. These details point to something much more than "ceasefire violations", which, according to Mar4d, happen "all the time." This is the international border, not a ceasefire line. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a disputed international border so ceasefire violations are not something out of the ordinary. Also, the article is on human rights abuses. Issues that come within scope include state/militant abuses and killings of civilians, political repression, rape torture, denial of freedom and individual rights etc. I am yet to hear a convincing argument where cross-border military exchanges come into that. It is a complicated issue and different from human rights. Would you regard the 2001 Bangladeshi-Indian border skirmish a human rights abuse? Also, the sources used above are based on Indian military/official reports and present one angle. If Indian military sources are going to be used, then it would become necessary that Pakistani military sources also be used in order to present both points of view as required by WP:NPOV. That would also include civilians who died due to firing by Indian forces on the Pakistani side of Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, According to your logic, post 9/11 bombings by US in Iraq which killed thousands of civilians was not human rights abuse because US was neither a "state" which governs Iraq or was neither "militants" like Al-Qaeeda or Hizbool Mujahideen. Border called as international border only if its not disputed otherwise its called as "Line of Control". Pak army violates ceasefire both on LoC and International border. And you yourself mentioning that "killings of civilian" by Indian army is human rights violations then Pak army not only kills civilians but thousands of people living in relief camps. If you want to write about killings of Pakistan side Kashmiris by Indian army then write it in Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Why you want to write about human rights abuses in Pakistan side of Kashmir in Indian Kashmir article?? We have already written killings of Indian Kashmiris by Indian army. Please, you are no where near any logical argument. No argument will convince you because your profile says you belongs to Pakistan. Better you take this matter to any dispute board. We need to involve admin here. --Human3015 23:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d must be correct here. The "human rights" sounds like a proper noun, and a source must mention these two words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone:, nice to see you, Yes I'm also agree with Mar4d regarding word "Human rights", but same should apply to other entities too. If some sourced news mentions atrocities by militants and Indian army but don't mentions word "human rights" then such sourced material should also get deleted from this article. Because many sourced news in this article simply says that militants killed some civilians in terror attack or Indian army killed some civilians without mentioning word "human rights'. Pakistan army also killed civilians and thousands of Kashmiri civilians are living in relief camps denying their "right to shelter" because of that. --Human3015 07:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I only commented on that particular sentences because it has been touched by both of you a number of times already. I wouldn't know what sentences you are talking about until you would quote even 4 of their words here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone:, I can quote many things from this article, for example sub-section of "Central reserve police force" says "Indian army killed 40 civilians" and they have attached 4 news sources but none of them mentions that its "human rights" violation. There are many such examples in this article. --Human3015 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes they will have to be removed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d and Kautilya3:, We are discussing this issue since couple of days, till now all possible editors who has this article on watchlist came here to discuss. This article has daily average 200 views according to stats.grok "Views of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir by Stats.grok , since this discussion started nearly 500 people watched this article but only 2(Kautilya3 and OccultZone) involved in discussion. This article got nearly 2500 views in last 15 days since I wrote about Pakistan army in lead of this article and out of 2500 only Mar4d challenged that edit. And we are going towards consensus, We can delete "Pakistan army" but along with that we have to remove many material regarding terrorists and Indian army which don't mention "Human rights". Is it ok for you? OccultZone and I are agree on this, if any one out of you is agree then we can do that edit. --Human3015 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys, you can't spend all your life's energies on this. Here is a possible resolution. The Indian actions inside the Indian Kashmir are clearly labelled as "human rights violations" by the Human Rights organisation reports. Let us not go back and contest that. The indiscriminate Pakistani shelling across the border which has resulted in civilian deaths and displaced civilians also counts as a human rights violation in my book. But it probably hasn't yet appeared on the radar screens of the Human Rights organisations. So, I would support including it somewhere in a small section, but please don't put it in the lead. If the Indian Army did similar shelling that affected civilians, that can also be included. If this is acceptable to all parties, then please go ahead. Otherwise, you would need to start an RfC. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, lead should mention all parties of "Human rights issues", as they mentioned all BSF, Police, Army, CRPF in the lead, they could have write only "Indian security force". And shelling by Indian army is issue of other region like Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. This article is only about Jammu and Kashmir and Indian army don't do shelling in Jammu and Kashmir, they do kill people by shooting which is already mentioned. --Human3015 09:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

To put it in the lead, you need to find a reliable source that labels them as human rights violations. Without that, you can't put it in the lead. Regarding the second issue, Indian Army don't do shelling? I suppose Mar4d can produces sources for that. If there are two sides to an issue, both should be mentioned. They can be mentioned in all articles where they are relevant. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, There is not a single source where Indian army killed civilians of Indian administered Kashmir by Shelling, Mar4d will provide sources where Indian army killed civilians by shelling in Pak administered Kashmir, but this article is about Indian administered Kashmir. We have already written about killings of Kashmiri civilians by Indian army via encounters and other routes.--Human3015 09:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, if Pakistani shelling is mentioned then Indian shelling should also be mentioned. They are two sides of the same coin. Mentioning one but not the other would amount to ascribing more guilt than warranted. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, so should we mention human rights abuses by Pakistan army in Pak administered Kashmir in this article because mentioning only about Indian army would amount to ascribing more guilt than warranted. --Human3015 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, those two are unrelated. But shelling across the border by the two sides are related by a tit-for-tat strategy. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that Kautilya3 is correct if he is trying to make way for both kinds of contents. So Kautilya3, when you are going to make your edits? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, what about making section on Pakistan army as earlier decided? --Human3015 12:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was rather assuming that you would write the section! I can copy-edit it later if necessary. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will create a section. Cheers.--Human3015 12:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and OccultZone:, Just check out recent section created by me. I wrote about both direct and indirect involvement of Pakistan in "human rights violations". We have already written about militants but we should also write who is behind those militants. Various protests in Kashmir leads to violence and killings but we should write who is behind inciting these protests intentionally to increase violence in Kashmir so that international bodies focus on Kashmir isssue. And also wrote about ceasefire violations as discussed.--Human3015 13:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• In agreement with Kautilya, both sides need to be mentioned per WP:NPOV. If I have time, I will make edits in that regard. Also, mentioning ceasefire violations in the lead right in the third sentence is POV and lending WP:UNDUE weight to the issue in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"Role of Pakistan"

This heading is contrary to the section being added where it is all claims even as per the text that is being added. The heading stating a factual role is highly POV to start with. Do not revert claiming the content is sourced because I did not object on OR, you've to address the matter being disputed... NPOV. Furthermore, you're now on 3RR after reverting two users - do not copy the same warning over to me as I've warned you when you reached 3 reverts. I'm hardly a part of any editwar on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

TopGun, thanks for discussing on talk. Read above discussion, "killing humans" is taken as criterion for "Human rights abuse". I also added reports of Human rights watch which accuse Pakistan for supporting abusive militants in Kashmir. They also explained role of Pakistan. --Human3015 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There, you said it. They accuse Pakistan. While the heading says it as a fact. Section headings are subject to even higher WP:DUE and WP:NPOV standards. And then there's Kashmiri's objection that this article has a different scope. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• The article still has unresolved issues from the last discussion, especially those pertaining to neutrality. Everyone above agreed that to maintain balance, sources from both sides should be used. Human3015 has made more one-sided edits after that discussion, with no balance or alternative points of view presented. The lead hasn't been fixed either, where it was agreed that it's not only the Pakistani army doing the shelling on the border. I don't think we can proceed forward until Human3015 lets the article be neutralised for WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

TopGun, what one sided edits?? article already mentions role of Indian army and militants. --Human3015 17:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110926215555/http://www.kaleo.org/2.13229/kashmir-the-predicament-1.1790247 to http://www.kaleo.org/2.13229/kashmir-the-predicament-1.1790247

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

POV bias

Recently banned sock user KahnJohn added allot of material without consensus but the biased editors did not challenged those edits but as soon as I removed his edit and added neutral sources pov pushing sock supporters threw their toys out of their prams. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

[2] so this sock user does not need to use talk page for consensus ? but I have to? biased islamophobic bigotry at its highest. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think it is biased islamophobic bigotry at its highest to mention the number of civilian casualties? zzz (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the same exact sentence is mentioned below in another section furthermore it was added by your sock friend who has no right to edit wikipedia I am not sure what wiki policy you have read regarding sock puppets but you need to educate yourself. Furthermore why are you so hell bent on hiding the sexual violence against women ?. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You still have not answered why you did not expect other users (especially your sock friends) to use talk pages but demanded I use one? and why are you deleting sourced information?. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've no idea what my sock friends think, but I think the civilian casualties belongs in the lead. As well as removing that - for no apparent reason - you also added:

According to a Time Magazine's article, in August 2008 half a million Kashmiri protesters at Srinagar crying "Azadi" (freedom) and waving Pakistani flags.

This makes no sense, and seems totally irrelevant. The (subscription required) Time article is apparently about "a dispute between Muslims and Hindus over 100 acres (40 hectares) of land near the Amarnath shrine in the Kashmir valley, which Indian authorities had granted to a Hindu pilgrim group." I haven't checked your most recent addition, about sexual violence. Since you're such an expert on policies, you should check WP:3RR, WP:BRD and WP:NPA, and then revert your additions. zzz (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, you can use [[User:Signedzzz]] to ping me here, rather than messaging my talk page. zzz (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not add that it was removed by a sock so I reverted the sock user which is a duty of all editors off course not for their associates such as yourself. Furthermore the fact that you wish to hide the sexual violence committed by Indian forces makes you unfit to participate in this article as you have a major agenda to white wash such crimes disgusting actually. R.Shukla.Mohan (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country%2C%2CCSCOAL%2C%2CIND%2C%2C498805f12d%2C0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405040713/http://kashmirwatch.com/humanrights.php/2011/07/16/ganderbal-fake-encounter-case.html to http://kashmirwatch.com/humanrights.php/2011/07/16/ganderbal-fake-encounter-case.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001190813/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/Armed%20forces%20_J%26K_%20Spl.%20powers%20act%2C%201990.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/Armed%20forces%20_J%26K_%20Spl.%20powers%20act%2C%201990.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809061202/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/north/spo-jawan-arrested-fake-encounter-kashmir-victim-civilian-287 to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/north/spo-jawan-arrested-fake-encounter-kashmir-victim-civilian-287
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709014733/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jan/28/woman-poisons-two-daughters-kills-self-47.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jan/28/woman-poisons-two-daughters-kills-self-47.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150414053053/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2015/Mar/4/geelani-resents-settlement-of-wp-refugees-in-jk-47.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2015/Mar/4/geelani-resents-settlement-of-wp-refugees-in-jk-47.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111191820/https://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/1130_india_terrorism_riedel.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/1130_india_terrorism_riedel.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001142151/http://www.kashmiraffairs.org/bijbehara%20massacre%20all.html to http://www.kashmiraffairs.org/bijbehara%20massacre%20all.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430003129/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=731448 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=731448

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Tag

Maybe there should be a tag applied to the Article like the one in the talk page? Just a suggestionVagbhata2 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Some rights groups say more than 100,000 people have died since 1989. Which rights groups?

The following statement in the second paragraph of the page has no clear sources for the exact number of people who have died in Kashmir. "Some rights groups say more than 100,000 people have died since 1989[7] while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above 50,000".

Here is the article linked in support of the above statement https://tribune.com.pk/story/228506/40000-people-killed-in-kashmir-india/

1. The above number of 100,000 is attributed to Some rights group . Since the quoted link too does not name the "Rights groups", this number is not credible.
   
2. The whole statement is lifted verbatim from the linked article which itself uses the term "Some rights groups" without indicating which rights groups could they be talking about

Please amend the statement accordingly and remove this figure of 100,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmanh (talk • contribs) 14:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Biased, one sided Propaganda material

Good part of this article has on sided propaganda with declarative statements with do not represent NPOV.

I made some changes by removing the one-sided opinionated statements, however, it was reverted by someone called Kautaliya3 stating that we need consensus for such edits Vivekaul (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul

Vivekaul, yes, consensus is needed. I hope you have the time and patience for this basic policy requirement of wikipedia. DTM (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased, one sided Propaganda material

Too many articles on this topic...Here's one more similar sounding article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Kashmir

This article sounds like a propaganda material with multiple , one-sided arguments written by someone who is/are blatantly anti India & anti- Indian armed forces. Sweeping generalisations such as :

- Crimes by militants are said to be incomparable with the larger scale abuse by Indian state forces. {

- while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above …. {What Freedom??? There's no freedom movement in Kashmir , just a terrorist movement} - Scholars state that India has committed a genocide of Kashmiri Muslims to subdue their revolt. { Really? Which Scholars???)

…..and many more. The entire article needs to be rewritten Vivekaul (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul

I believe everything is sourced to pretty good sources. Check them, bring up any specific issues you find. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I've already mentioned the areas of disagreement above> Phrases like "Scholars state that India has committed a genocide of Kashmiri Muslims to subdue their revolt" are totally biased, unsubstantiated & unproven. There's no credible proof of any such thing. The entire article is full of such generalisations & half-truth. This article lacks neutrality. Vivekaul (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul

That is not the way to raise an objection. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has no value on Wikipedia. Objections have to be based on WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Are the statements a fair representation of what the sources say? Are the sources of good enough quality? Do they represent a consensus view or a narrow section of opinion?

I have looked at the statement you mention above, and that does come as a surprise. Its first source is a Pakistan Horizons article, which is not of good quality and very likely a WP:PRIMARY source. The second one seems legit, but may not be very representative. I would support toning down this statement to something that has wider consensus among the scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk) One-sided, declarative statements such as "Scholars believe...." ; "the use of force by army is disproportional to the force by militant groups...." and many more sound like propaganda by Pakistani media. It does not behove a neutral site like Wikipedia. If at all this viewpoint has to be mentioned, the counter viewpoint from Indian sources too should be mentioned. The entire article is full of such statements. Even the term 'massacre' has been liberally used. Allegations cannot be made to sound like facts. Vivekaul (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul

Yeah, I get that. So, what do you propose to do about it? You can't simply go and delete whatever you feel like. It needs to be justified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed a few lines from a long write up and added words such as ‘as alleged’ and ‘allegations of ‘ etc. I provided the justification for these actions. What additional justification is required ? I am happy to do that. In collaborative editing if I remove a few biased lines or neutralize a few lop-sided arguments, I am not sure if I understand why that’s unacceptable. After all the person / persons who wrote all this were also allowed to write it in the first place. Vivekaul (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul

They wrote it using reliable sources. If they misrepresented the sources, then you are free to amend them and state that you are editing it "as per source" in your edit summary. If you just think something is biased, you need to raise it here first and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, here we go with some sample statements :

a) Statement : "Crimes by militants are said to be incomparable with the larger scale abuse by Indian state forces". Sources such as Oxford Islamic Studies online may not necessarily be unbiased. These sites provide only the Muslim view point - as they do in this case. Hence the details using this as a reference should go.

b) Reference 8 : Statement "while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above 50,000" At no point in the document has this movement been termed as pro-freedom, so calling it a pro-freedom movement is totally wrong & a figment of the imagination of the writer of this sentence. At the best it can be termed as "pro-Pakistan militant movement"

c) Statement : "civilians allegedly mostly killed by Indian Armed Forces"...again a statement with no references. It should be changed to "civilians allegedly mostly killed by Indian Armed Forces and the militant groups.

d) reference 23 "Militant violence led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation front against 219 pandits according Jammu and Kashmir government source" is a deliberately mischievous statement which should be neutralised to : Killings resulting in the murder of 219 Pandit led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front ( killed between 1989 till 2010)

e) Reference 28 : link missing. Looks like a factually incorrect statement f) Reference 29 : Wrong statement "Human Rights groups have also accused the Indian security forces of using child soldiers" the link provided mentions "Since there is no systematic birth registration in some rural areas it is sometimes difficult to prove one's real age. Therefore it is possible for children to be recruited into defence and paramilitary forces"

I could go on & on... The entire article is written with a clear anti-India bias. Unsubstantiated statements, half truths & twisted phrases are used to build a biased narrative. The entire article has to be rewritten Vivekaul (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul

I am afraid you have to go on & on. The editors who added the content did their research and found sources, whereas you are just complaining without any references to sources. A complaint can only be made on the grounds of policies. Here are some comments on some of your issues. (I am not going to spend all my day just checking these. We need to raise your game so that you edit according to policies.)

• (a)  Not done. WP:BIASED sources are allowed. Read the policy!
• (b)  Done. Changed "pro-freedom movement" to "insurgency" as per WP:NPOV. The source did not attribute the deaths to either militants or the security forces.
• (c)  Done. Deleted the WP:OR.
• (d)  Not done. I will let you correct as per the source. Note that there is no mention of JKLF anywhere in the source. I think the reference to JKLF should be removed.
• (e) If a link is missing, you can try to find it on Google. If you can't find it, you need to add a tag {{full citation needed}}. Look through this list for the kind of quality tags/templates you are allowed to add to identify problems. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible addition

1 TrangaBellam (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass revert

Y2edit?, Kautilya3, Mukesh.kfc, Akshaypatil, DataCrusade1999, Hemantha, Dsnb07, Pri2000, Ab207, Extorc, Wikihc, Webberbrad007, 77Survivor, DaxServer, SGiaNaksh, this mass revert has removed some sentences that were made for a NPOV. Please add them back.-27.7.4.36 (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL just left a note on my Talk page that I should get consensus for my edits as per WP:Consensus, so I will wait for a response from the other editors - especially, Kautilya3 - you have pinged, instead of reverting it myself.-Y2edit? (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

For those who come here, seeing the ping by the IP, I ask, should References 5, 17, 89, and 90 (and the sentences they support) be removed as it is by Seema Kazi who is not a notable figure?-Y2edit? (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing is based on reliability, not notability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• One smart advice I can give you is to not mass ping so many people, I don't think there is any large issue that can require 15 peoples attention on an article at the same time. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Seema Kazi has been quoted with this which seems to be a reliable source, but this doesn't seem so and reference number 17 (now 18 after my additional sentence in the lead), "Between democracy and nation: Gender and militarisation in Kashmir" is a Dissertation and is not a reliable source and should be removed. Please comment. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you copy those full citations here and explain what the issue is with each of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, there was a sentence in the lead, "

Militant groups have also been held responsible for similar crimes, but the vast majority of abuses have been perpetrated by the armed forces of the Indian government.

and I changed it to, "

Seema Kazi alleges that Militant groups have also been held responsible for similar crimes, but the vast majority of abuses have been perpetrated by the armed forces of the Indian government.

but TrangaBellam has reverted that twice. I hope you can clarify what is right and I will follow your advice.-Y2edit? (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what is said in peer-reviewed scholarly sources is reported as fact, unless it is contradicted by other sources of comparable quality. See WP:YESPOV. We don't report facts as opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I copied this from the body to the lead for neutrality and he has reverted it, "

Reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists have confirmed Indian reports of systematic human rights violations by militants

-Y2edit? (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I changed the word migration to exodus and added a link in this sentence, "

Militant violence in the 1990s, led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front against Kashmiri Hindu Pandits has led to the exodus of several hundred thousands of them out of the Kashmir valley, who before their exodus comprised an estimated ~5% of the valley's population.

but he has reverted that also. Any comments?-Y2edit? (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

How is your first addition (about reports) due or exceptional enough, to deserve a mention in lead? For example, have they not confirmed "reports of systematic human rights violations" by Indian Armed Forces? We do mention that the militants have have also been held responsible for similar crimes. About the second case: two exodus in the same sentence is poor phrasing. I have nothing against the wiki-link.

Fwiw, Kazi is not some fringe academic in claiming the excesses of Indian state to far-outweigh the militants'. If I recall correctly, The Occupied Clinic and other books of a similar genre puts forward the same observations. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, the sentence using Ms.Kazi as a source is accusatory which is why I added the sentence about what Amnesty and others reported about the systematic human rights violations by militants. Now can that be added back or no?-Y2edit? (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the sentence,

Scholar Seema Kazi says it is used as a weapon of war by the state against the population.

uses a dissertation and I think it should be removed. Please advise if it is okay to do so.-Y2edit? (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you can put a {{better source needed}} tag and add the reason that it is an unpublished thesis. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.-Y2edit? (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

• yeah, Keep raising voice on NPOV it will make wikipedia better someday. Dsnb07 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to newcomers

Many of you are just coming and venting your anger here due to which an administrator has semi-protected this talk page, but you must understand that Wikipedia is based on some rules - if you want something to be included in this article, you must find a reliable source to add what you want. You can click here and read about those sources WP:RS - for every sentence you propose, you should provide a reliable source, that is a website or book which says whatever you want to be added to this article. Please edit other articles for the next 4 days (and make a minimum of ten edits) and come back here to post your question or request with a reliable source - it should be a website or book publication which should meet the criteria at WP:RS - remember that, "opIndia" and "RepublicTV" and other such websites are not considered reliable sources here. If you want, you can log in, click and ask that when anybody searches for, "Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus", it should re-direct to the article titled, "Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus" [here] (if more people add, "Keep" the redirect will remain, if more people add, "Delete", it will be deleted). Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It is now unprotected but my instructions are still the same - you need to provide a reliable source/reference for anything you want to add to this article.-Y2edit? (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Y2edit? I do respect your advice you are giving new editors. But you mentioned if more people add, "Keep" the redirect will remain, if more people add, "Delete", it will be deleted. Let me make it more clear, the number of votes doesn't matter, What matters is policy. If everyone will add Keep or Delete it doesn't matter if the votes are against the policy. Quantity will not change a decision, Quality will. My advice is kindly comment per policies and keep personal sentiments away. Thankyou and Happy Editing. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 12:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thank you!-Y2edit? (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Indian settler colonization

This section is to discuss Indian settler colonization in Kashmir.

Currently, Harvard Law Review and Harvard International Law Journal refer to this particular human rights violation.

In addition, Professor Hafsa Kanjwal does the same in her book Colonizing Kashmir: State-building under Indian Occupation and an article on Washington Post. Solblaze (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Has she presented any evidence that "settler colonialism" has actually occurred? Do any of the sources you cite presented any such evidence? Mind you that you are putting this in the MOS:LEAD paragraph and the LEAD sentence even. The standards for such inclusion are very high. Do not reinstate such problematic content without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir range from Indian settler colonialism, mass killings, enforced disappearances, torture, rape and sexual abuse to political repression and suppression of freedom of speech. The Indian Army, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), and Border Security Personnel (BSF) have been accused of committing severe human rights abuses against Kashmiri civilians. According to Seema Kazi, militant groups have also been held responsible for similar crimes, but the vast majority of abuses have been perpetrated by Indian forces.

References