Talk:Kashmir conflict

Pervez Musharraf's Interview in Exile

These claims and comments are POV, whether it is his claim that Pakistan was complicit in the formation of militant groups or his claim that India is killing civilians. None of these can be used as facts. In exile, he neither represents the govt. of pakistan nor the people of kashmir. So, his views have to be kept in the article "as is". Adding his "confession" as a fact and then using weasel words to remove POV from the innocent killings is double standards. As mentioned earlier, WP is not to judge or certify something, it just represents what is said. In such cases, (interviews), the statements need to be as they are spoken, in quotes and without paraphrasing. How about I start paraphrasing the sentence of the Kashmiri Hindu talking to BBC to " The person claimed people, who according to him, were armed insurgents, allegedly tortured and killed". How would this sound? Also, please do not start reverting people's edits without discussion, unless it is vandalism, deletion etc as we saw in the recent past that led to semi-protection of the page. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Now as it seems, I think the lines that you added are irrelevant and are lending UNDUE weight to one man's POVs. By the way, I wasn't using rollback Killbillbrowser. I don't know what you understand about the usage of the word confession, but it's confession when it is an act of admitting that you have done something which you previously kept secret or denied. That's simple english. I removed your lines. Do not obscure the significance of the heading. Please do not edit war. The quotation is being used without pertinence. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, a summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Confession could be used when we know that what this guy is saying is actually the truth. At this point, he could be making stuff up. He does not represent anybody besides himself, so to make the statement that Pakistani government was involved is way too much to state as a confession. Remember, this guy was part of an illegitimate government anyway during his tenure, so if you want it here, it has to be either presented as statements of washed out for POV, just as you want it for the civilian killings statement.

On another note, you are Edit warring, not me and yes you did | revert changes. When you added this, I did not remove it, rather requested you to move it to a section as it was irrelevant in the human rights section. If I had to edit war, I could have removed it at that time. However, as soon as I added a balancing view, which by the way was in the same interview, you suddenly started | reverting. At this point, this person represents neither the government of pakistan, nor kashmir, nor India. So his statements cannot be used as facts or confessions. I am happy to keep them there, but only in the form he stated. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Confession could be used when we know that what this guy is saying is actually the truth. - Simply wrong. You're not only misinforming you're also saying stupid things. Truth or not, that fact is he admitted to forming militant groups. I don't know what you;re trying to achieve here, okay let's take this up in the page WP:NPOV/N. There, it will more exposure. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

WAIT A SECOND: The quoted portion "doesn't question India about the killings of innocent civilians in Kashmir" doesn't even exist in the sources. It was not even an assertion, it was a rhetorical question..He said, "The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and that was before he admitted that The Pakistani government formed militant groups. That quoted portion was personal and biased opinion of Killbillbrowser all along. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously???Killbillsbrowser (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gentleman, please pack in the edit warring. You don't seem to be getting anywhere on this page; I can see that both of you have feelings that run high on this issue, and would strongly suggest that you do as suggested and take it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:DRN to get some outside input. If you carry on reverting the article back and forth you're both likely to end up sweating out a block, and no-one wants that. We have processes for resolving disputes like this, please make use of them instead of butting heads. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Britannica reference

Why are reference from other encyclopaedia used here? Is it not against policy?111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Eg.

Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir

- sourced from Britannica.com

This by itself does not mean that Wikipedia itself is or is not a branch of Britannica or the Church or CIA or MI6. It is just about standards.

Another source clarifies that the self-styled liberators were supported covertly by Pakistani Army. From this source [from FAQ section]

“ Of the 75 crore to be paid the first installment of Rs. 20 crore was already released. Invasion of Kashmir by self-styled liberators with the covert support of the Pakistani Army took place before the second installment was paid. Government of India decided to withhold it. Lord Mountbatten was of the opinion that it amounted to a violation of the mutually agreed conditions and he brought it to the notice of Gandhiji. To Gandhiji's ethical sense the policy of tit for tat was repugnant and he readily agreed with the Viceroy's point of view. ”

So mention covert support from Pakistani Army also.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is covert support of Pakistani Army not mentioned yet after secondary sources are mentioned?111.91.95.40 (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference

Why was this reference removed by User:Mrt3366. The video is not a copy paste. A live evidence uploaded by Public Broadcasting service Trust of India can be used as a reference. Regarding WP:CITEKILL, kill other references such as news paper reports. I‘m restoring my edit, if there is any thing respond here.  MehrajMir (Talk) 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That youtube video by an independent film-maker (or any video for that matter, unless a notable news report) is not a reliable source, especially big claims need solid sources, this isn't one. I can literally add scores of youtube videos in this article I doubt that would be very helpful. Besides, this video may not be talking about Médecins Sans Frontières for all I care. And no, other news paper reports will not be killed because they are reliable sources. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You could take it to WP:RSN if you want. Until it's decided that it is a reliable source and also not a copy-vio, I will suggest you to not re-add it. Thanks, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That means I have to prove the reliablity of this reference, which I did in the Ocean of Tears (the article of its name). I‘m using this reference to the subject matter of its own. And if you can prove it unreliable as well as its article, you are most welcome to remove it.  MehrajMir (Talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.
• BTW I noticed you re-entered the source and framed the claims as facts, as opposed to taking it to the WP:RSN first. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• After spendind more than one year in editting and creating article, I know what are the reliable sources. And I didnt oppose to take the ref to WP:RSN as there was no need. If you feel such you take that. And what you have done here you‘ve removed the parameters of quote, the history you provided is “added alleged“ what can be summed up from this.  MehrajMir (Talk) 10:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• That was a mistake in edit summary, big deal. Only conclusion which I can reach is that you feel you've the authority to arbitrarily decide what is and is not the reliable source and that you lack assumption of good faith. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for accepting that mistake, may please restore. I‘ve no authority and am not judging anything, let others to judge. I respect you and everyone, though our views are different but still we are as a family trying to build and reach a conclusion acceptable to everyone. If my approach was wrong I apologise.  MehrajMir (Talk) 14:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification: The mistake was in the edit summary not the edit itself. Long quotes are not needed esp. if it's this long. See WP:QUOTEFARM. It might as well be a quote mining without giving the whole scenario. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is this a THREAT Stop whatever you're doing here Mehrajmir13 (provided in the edit summary).  MehrajMir (Talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• How on earth could that sound like a threat? Don't be so juvenile dear ;). It was simply an advice against your manner of arbitrarily labelling my action as a "mistake" or rather your misconstrual of my comments. Please, stop scrabbling about for excuses to frame this as a dispute. Cheers and Merry Christmas, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Let's resolve the apparently gratuitous dispute civilly. This portion of the content is the core of the dispute, now the question is why not add it to Rape in India or Rape in Jammu and Kashmir after sprucing it up a little for neutrality and call it a day? No? BTW there are a few misconceptions floating around unfettered. I would like to dispel them.

1. this is not balancing anything.
2. One section is undue since it's just one man's rhetorical query based on personal predilections (not even a proper and credible criticism) against another man.
3. This article is about the conflict, the HRV sections are already in need of a generous trim in order for them to be suitable as a summary section in the parent article.

Hence I request all of you. Do not edit war. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Human rights

These sections are now far to large for this article, the recent additions of a section for rape is just undue. We have articles to cover human rights abuses and rape. Rape in India, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. The HRV sections in this article have to be cut down to just a summary. I will do this in the next few days and would appreciate input from others on the best way to go about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I will go ahead and suggest that they be fundamentally re-written to highlight only the major issues (just the overview) as opposed to the minutiae of specific incidents, let the details be merged to the spin-offs. This article is far too large to be hosting these sections. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well with that. However, would have appreciate these undos and reverts when Mrt3366 adds interviews and statements of individuals as well and creates new sections out of it. Not sure why they suddenly do not make this article heavy. Regarding the statement, this is for the first time an indian official, in office, has criticized the army and thus was welcomed by opposition as better late than never. In addition it is not about Rape in India, it is about rape of common people by the military (allegation for Mrt3366, truth for me), which has everything to do with the conflict. But I will also agree that we move all this including these statements and quotes from BBC, Mussharraf, these officials etc. to sub-pages and make this shorter. Till then we should leave all the content in there, so we know what to move to the right pages. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

my suggestion is we create a sandbox page (and sub pages) and get some external help to guide us through this process, given our strong feelings about this subject.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you two are never going to agree, and based on your revert of ever more crap inot the article I figure I will just have to gut it unilaterally. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Killbillsbrowser‘s comments.  MehrajMir (Talk) 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Allow me to avoid commenting on patently nonsensical and irrelevant allegations because I think they constitute a red herring fallacy. I've reverted multiple undiscussed changes brought forth with an attitude that is antithetical to assumption of good-faith. I am going to talk about them in the following paragraph. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now let's scrutinize them as thoroughly as possible.

1. This was reverted because blockquoting excessively long quotations clutter the actual article and remove attention from other information (See WP:UNDUE). Also a summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Moreover, longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.
2. This was reverted as per my comments on the previous section and I am not going to repeat them.
3. This was itself a revert of the revert a breach of WP:BRD, I suppose (however, you're no more obliged to follow BRD than I am). Hence, I deemed it necessary to comment here and sort out the issue here. Please discuss.

Hence do not edit war. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Now to comment on some of the suggestions put forth by KBB,

my suggestion is we create a sandbox page (and sub pages) and get some external help to guide us through this process - I strongly oppose that, since that is needlessly time-consuming. Some of us might not have that much enthusiasm or the time to follow through with it.

Regarding the statement, this is for the first time an Indian official, in office, has criticized the army and thus was welcomed by opposition as better late than never. - it is irrelevant what you make of it. It is not the first time nor will it be the last. It was not a criticism. Currently the article uses "stating during his tenure", well he didn't "state" anything about it either; it was a rhetorical question that is well within the purview of subjectivity. I implore everybody to check the sources first.

In addition it is not about Rape in India, it is about rape of common people by the military - again irrelevant what you make of it. Rape only has two components IMO, first, the perpetrator, and second, the victim. That's it. Do not obfuscate the discussion please.

Till then we should leave all the content in there, so we know what to move to the right pages. - you sound like an ideal filibusterer to me, KBB. I am sorry but you do. If you're consciously doing this then please stop your attempts to stonewall improvement basing on your preferences. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Stop your edits with double standard policy. What you‘ve removed is a quote from "Human rights watch". What about the quote from "BBC". Either restore this edit or remove the quote from "BBC" as well.  MehrajMir (Talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• But I will also agree that we move all this including these statements and quotes from BBC, Mussharraf, these officials etc. - No, not Musharraf's confessions. He was the army chief and President of Pakistan any direct comments from him will automatiocally be relevant in this article. Besides, it is not only about Human rights Issue. It is about Pakistan's overt involvement in aiding terrorists.

  Now, Mehrajmir13, that not-so-long BBC quote is a first-hand comment from an eye-witness of the heinous tortures who was interviewed by the reporter of BBC as opposed to lengthy, cherry-picked and pointless quotes from the pages of secondary sources that are not even statements but rhetorical questions. Two don't compare. Same goes for Musharraf's admission. Come on. But even then I don't mind removing the BBC-quote and keeping it in the sub-article, as long as both the sections are re-written from the very beginning (i.e. 3.1 and 3.2). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That means you continue your double standard policy. It leaves me with one choice, reverting your edit.  MehrajMir (Talk) 06:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• How does it mean that I am continuing to display double-standard esp. when I have given my approval to some of your more stringent demands? Stop your revert-wars and stop misconstruing my comments. Stop your ad hominem attacks. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, everything there is relevant to this article. But, since there is a whole other separate article covering human rights abuses - we need to provide a brief summary. That means we don't necessarily have to get rid of anything, except maybe some of the more trivial information (if anything on that subject can be called "trivial"). As for what specifically is "trivial", well, all I can do is provide my opinion. Also, keep in mind that we're not really removing anything from Wikipedia at all, we're just moving it. -- Director (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly the case. Although I will not call them as "trivial" but give consent to the proposal of moving some of the tributary appurtenances that are not so closely related to the core of the conflict here (i.e. only mention the summary of the abuses but move specific incidents along with the details of Human rights abuses to the corresponding article(s)). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Size

Currently the size of the article is beyond the acceptable limit of readable prose size (136.27Kb). That means it almost immediately should be divided. IMHO, it would be ideal if the article could be wrapped up inside 80Kb, now the question is what to leave out. It should be easy to notice that what sections of this article are acting as a magnet for unhelpful contributions (i.e. 3.1 and 3.2). All we are saying is since we already have the spin-off articles and we have almost exactly the same duplicated contents in the spin-off articles of the two Human rights abuses sections, it would be better to just leave them there and — except for the summaries — jettison/merge those contents from this article in order to reduce size. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the human rights section (lets do that and then perhaps move on), I think it should not consist of more than two fair-sized paragraphs (three max). One for general info, and one each for the two areas of Kashmir. Thoughts? -- Director (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but I am awaiting Darkness Shines's opinion on this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, everyone's opinion is relevant to the proposed organization. -- Director (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Section heading is POV?

The heading Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's involvement in forming militant groups is pov? How come? And how is arbitrary removal valid/necessary here? Should we make it Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's support for militant groups? If we only make it Musharraf's claims; it begs the question claims about about what? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• You highlights Musharaf's a claim which you like while he states other claims too. Why we should not mention "Musharaf's claims" that covers everything per WP:NPOV. Please avoid extremeness and bad faith.Justice007 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He may have claimed a lot of things in his life, yeah, but the reason that renders his comments essential and relevant is his admission. I suggest you first get familiar with WP:NPOV. BTW, I didn't "highlight" anything.

"Please avoid extremeness and bad faith." - I am deliberately trying to be polite with you and you on the other hand are calling me a bad-faith editor. Do not edit war. Consider yourself warned. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)