Talk:Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir

Merge

This article (if it even manages to exist) should be merged into a small section in Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir since HRA in Azad Kashmir are not as much notable as HRA in Jammu and Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notable enough for HRW to write an entire report on them, which I am currently reading, cheerio. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a couple of sources will be all you will be able to find. The depth of coverage of this topic is nowhere near to HRA in Jammu and Kashmir. Comparing the level of academic sources available, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir will become a good long article while this will jut be left as a small one in comparison with hardly anything. Mar4d (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this article will remain small. I also know the other article I started will be a decent one as I am rewriting it. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of pov stuff. It is linking missing person issue in Pakistan to Azad Kashmir. Not sure how many can actually be linked. We need to put POV tags and other tags to make sure that readers know that this article is not reliable enough and require some more work. Spasage (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Forced disappearances

Just two disappearances in all of 2011 is hardly mass human rights abuses, this should be removed from the lead since it is not notable. Two disappearances is really peanuts compared to Jammu and Kashmir. I am looking at other sources too. Mar4d (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The population is less than 40 lakh, so 2 is a notable figure.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really, 2 appearances make it enough to get in a news paper, not an encyclopedia.. that's stuff for Wikinews (to be reasonable). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the first source, the figure is far higher than two. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What kind of words being used in this article, can anyone explain me what this means "........ are an ongoing issue, ranging from forced disappearances[1][2], torture[3] to political repression and electoral fraud ......". Wikipedia policy does not say that you write whatever you want and block changes afterwards. We need to change words being used in this article along with pov and other tags during our discussion if we should have this article at all. Spasage (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What are you waffling on about? If the sources say there have been forced disappearances then so do we, which just about goes for the rest. What exactly is not neutral? Perhaps you be a little clearer. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is based on references which are not authenticated. Article is exaggerated in every aspect. If you want continue to push it, it is other story, but having tags would only help this article get better. Otherwise it is just another example of POV articles. Can you answer me, why you want tags to be removed? If they remain there, would this article have less credible? This is wikipedia, not place to place to write articles without any meaning. Not only this, I have some serious doubts about references you have given. Spasage (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying I use fake references? Check the fucking references rather than make accusations. The article is not exaggerated at all, now you have two choices here. Tell me what exactly is POV in this article, if you do not I will remove the tags. Your second choice lays in getting lost as you are not helping to improve this article, rather just edit warring in tags which have no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What kind of language you are using and why. Secondly, tag should stay for while. Issues can be fixed during the course. Spasage (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You accuse me of using fake references, what did you expect? Flowers and chocolates? Last time, either state unequivocally what in this article is poorly sourced or not written in a neutral manner or I will remove the tag bomb you added. It is against policy to tag an article and then not explain exactly what you think is wrong with the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

References does not seems to be credible enough, requires some time. Please beaware of the fact you are neighter police man not judge of wikipedia. So, dont try to be one. I dont know if you can give any one *Flowers and chocolates*. *fucking references*, mind you they are your own references not mine. Again, if you dont understand what I am saying, leave the tags for sometime so that others can also comment and contribute. Spasage (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As I thought, you do in fact have no argument within policy to tag this article. I will remove them. Do not restore them unless you actually have something substantial to say. Actually, you have had 14 days now to check those references. why have you not? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dont remove them for now. Spasage (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You have given to reason for me not to. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL what a douchebag you tag bombed [1] without any discussion but expect others to justify tagging? what a pathetic excuse for an editor you are darkness 86.168.42.54 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir → Human rights abuses in Pakistan-administered Kashmir –

• Covers both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. User:92.14.188.24 21:12, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC)
• Oppose with existing consensus on the issue: we already have an article for Human rights in Pakistan... Gilgit Baltistan is technically covered in that per Pakistani law as it is not a part of Kashmir as an administration. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a non neutral title as well as the titles are used for actual entities... Pakistan administered Kashmir is just a term like Indian administered Kashmir to refer to the disputed areas. The article for the counter part is titled Human right abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Further, we already have a consensus for not keeping such title at the talk page of Azad Kashmir article which got Pakistan-administered Kashmir article merged into that. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support for ease of use, 92, you could always create Human rights abuses in Gilgit-Baltistan and link it to the other articles as a see also. The information you added here BTW is already present in the parent article Human rights abuses in Kashmir Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per TopGun. How about go one step further and merge this redundant article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir? Mar4d (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no need to merge this article into the parent article, there are more than enough sources to expand it when I have the time. Also given 14,500 hits on GNews for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" it seems a common enough term in usage for an article name. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I can support the merge if we can create one good article out of these 3-4. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.