User talk:Arjun024

Welcome!

Please “sign” (~~~~) your messages.

Leave me a message

Note:Replies of any discussion started here will be replied here itself. Please drop a Talkback box if you have any messages for me elsewhere.

Another two...

I guess we have to keep a closer eye on this one and this one. Vedant (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep; May be you would like to have a look at these articles as well: Kunan Poshpora incident, Burning of Lal Chowk. regular POV pushers' hangout. second one is much POV ridden i would say. Arjun^codename024 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... Unfortunately there is no shortage of articles like this though thankfully WikiProject India does take some action and atleast the most important articles are not thoroughly defaced by a bunch of vandals. Worse, there are still tons of editors like this though one that sticks out is User:Lalit Jagannath. Take a look at his contributions.

I do have to point out though that some of these claims are fairly well researched (others not so much) and while I think that certain organizations have a tendency to embellish certain statistics, a lot of these facts don't appear in dispute. It should also be noted that the Indian government is not always the most truthful when it comes to admitting cases of human rights violations which are not an uncommon occurrence in India. In addition, it is practically a given that Indian Security Forces have in the past engaged in gross violations of human rights which I would classify is conduct un-becoming of a democratic government. I'm not attempting to justify the human rights violations of any other country but it would be unfair to dismiss all of these allegations. I do agree with you though that the second article is ridiculously twisted and am forced to wonder how long before said editors decide to widen their interests and make India look like the instigator of all human rights violations in the sub-continent. Vedant (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

And how is this a credible source?Vedant (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that like any other force, Indian Security Forces have their share of human rights issues; however these editors press hard to show up one side of the topic only and present sources to that regard - thus making up a false illusion that the article is well referenced. For worse, a lot of these editors are the come-and-go type. We see different names in different days all having the same motive though - making it difficult to follow up their contribs. Arjun^codename024 21:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly on that matter, it's just that we should be careful what we add/remove to the article. I believe that the violations of the involved Indian paramilitary/military organizations should be reported on but should be done in a neutral tone. It's also true that most people will just read one article on Wikipedia and formulate their entire opinion on a matter which is why said editors indulge in editing these articles. It seems to me that they are only interested in looking for sources that enable them to push their POV which is why one of the articles in question heavily references only two citations. There's a somewhat similar issue going on in the Sino-Indian War article where certain users consider Neville Maxwell to be the only authority on the matter and take his words as divine wisdom. Vedant (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Arjun, I just wanted to tell you to tread carefully. I don't personally agree with all the claims that said users are instating but it is not a good idea to violate WP:3RR as if someone reports it to an admin, it's almost guaranteed to result in a block unless the other user was vandalizing the page. Kabuli raises a valid point that Srinagar lies in Indian-Administered Kashmir but I believe you are correct in that Srinagar is located in territory that is administered by/belongs to India. Nonetheless, I urge you to take it up with an administrator before reverting his edit again. Vedant (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

My revert was more to his point that there exits a consensus in Kashmir related articles to do so - but i could not see such a consensus in the articles of places administered by Pak. However, i did not revert his next edit before talking it up in his talk page. thanks for the 3RR reminder. Arjun^codename024 10:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Srinagar

Please feel free to edit any articles about Muzaffarabad to reflect that they are in "Azad Jammu & Kashmir" or "Pakistani-administered Jammu & Kashmir." The Srinagar page, which I have not edited, clearly reflects the general consensus on WP in terms of nomenclature for J&K cities. I've also noticed that you've started removing fully referenced statements from other articles that I have written. My edits are generally based on neutral, third-party sources. Please do not remove referenced statements from articles. Kabuli (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason you said for your edit in changing "Srinagar, India -> Srinagar, Indian administered Kashmir" was that there already existed a consensus. My intention when i pointed you to the article Muzaffarabad and others in "Pakistani-administered Jammu & Kashmir" was to let you know that such a consensus is non-existent in the sense all Kashmir articles are bound to one. On your accusation that i have removed fully referenced statements from other articles, would you be kind enough to pin point them. I have tried to stick to NPOV as far as i could; however i know i would have made mistakes. Bring that up, let us talk. Well in this article, i have made a minor tweak, which i think you will agree.
Honestly i have my own doubts about the cited source (the book whose name goes by "My Kashmir" ). It could have used the phrase a crowd of more than one million as a hyperbole rather than an estimate of the count. i searched news sources, but could not find sources referring to a crowd of more than one million. So i would urge you to cite yet another source to back the claim in that book, because editors could remove it in the future citing this reason. Arjun^codename024 10:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The cited source is by a (non-Kashmiri) Indian senior ICS officer who was posted in Kashmir at the time. In any case, I have added an additional sourceKabuli (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

On the article Kunan Poshpora incident, you have inserted a phrase "and perhaps as many as 100 women" from a NYT source which says "Local people say that as many as 100 women were molested in some way." . Local people can say anything. Many other incidents in the world have gone by with local people claiming far bigger things. This does not let you put such insignificant fringe theories in wikipedia using a "perhaps" - Truly un-encyclopedic. In that article itself, it says "Local villagers alleged that up to 100 women .........." which is correct and sourced. Arjun^codename024 10:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence would read "as few as 23, and perhaps as many as 100 women, reported that they were allegedly raped." The sentence already includes the qualifiers "allegedly" and "reported." The purpose of the statement is to give an idea of the scale of the alleged crimes that occurred, and I think its unfair to retain only the lower estimate while deleting the higher estimate.Kabuli (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)