Talk:2016–2017 Kashmir unrest

Response section

I was wondering whether it would be wise to add comments by Indian politicians and them blaming Pakistan for the unrest? many articles suggest that its this attitude of denial of home grown freedom movements which stoke the massacres we see so often in Indian-controlled Kashmir. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source that says that this "attitude" has stoked anything, we can discuss further. Please keep in mind that there are plenty of reliable sources that document Pakistan's involvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fahad Shah source

Other reports suggest that issues dating back to 2010 where mass protests lead to many civilian deaths contributed to the current situation. While suggesting that India's continued dealing of the issue as law and order related while ignoring the deep rooted political aspirations of the people as a reason for the unrest and India’s failure to address Kashmir’s political issues coupled with dealing with protesters with deadly force will only continue the cycle of unrest.

References

Could please show me where I have added original research ? did you bother reading the source I provided for the addition I made ? 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. Please provide a quotation that justifies your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"India’s reaction to this uprising and many in past has been to blame Pakistan. A minister of the Indian government accused Pakistan of interfering into India’s internal affairs. Kiren Rijiju, the union minister of state for home affairs, said, “[Pakistan] should worry [more] about human rights violations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir than Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir is an internal matter of India.” Additional troops were also sent to Kashmir, with New Delhi seeing the problem as a law and order issue, and ignoring the deep rooted political aspirations of the people. In the 2010 uprising, the Indian government sent a three-member team to assess the situation, but their report also didn’t address the deeper political issues.

India’s failure to address Kashmir’s political problem, while people only resorted to peaceful protests, has led to this new anger. This new generation of youth taking to the streets, different than any in past, will be committed to defying restrictions and facing the Indian soldiers’ bullets to make a political statement. Violence begets violence and soon many young boys may be inspired to follow in Wani’s path, seeking to lead Kashmir to a new political reality." 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph you quote is not talking about causes of the unrest, whereas your text does. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of WP:OR.

The second paragraph is talking about the causes in a cursory way, but note that it is already covered in my first paragraph, which is based on much more in-depth analytical sources:

Several reasons for this trend have been cited such as the absence of a political dialogue, the lack of economic opportunities, frustration due to high unemployment, excessive militarisation of the public space and repeated human rights violations by the security forces.

I can expand on that further, and probably will. But you definitely need to delete your WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Update needed 16 July 2016

[Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)]

The current death toll in Kashmir is reported to be 41.

I am new here and don't know how to summarize or cite in the proper format. For example, embedded references from Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir are included in the article quoted below. Other details were not clearly cited in the article, but are reflected in the websites for Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir. Hindustan Times adds a newer detail that the newspaper ban is for 3 days. But the Times of India is outdated by 2 days.

I don't want to take responsibility for summarizing and editing, so the following is a verbatim quote from NDTV: Srinagar: One more person died in firing by security forces after clashes in Kashmir on Saturday, taking the number of deaths in the violence triggered by the killing of terrorist Burhan Wani to 41. Cable TV services were suspended for more than 12 hours and newspapers have alleged a media gag. Here are the top 10 developments in the story:

   One person was killed and two injured after security forces opened fire on a crowd when they attacked a police post in Kupwara district of north Kashmir.
   Small protests were reported in some parts of the Valley but the protesters were chased away by security personnel who resorted to baton charge, an official said.
   Journalists and editors sat on a protest in Srinagar after being told not to publish newspapers by authorities. From tomorrow, newspapers will not be sold on newsstands but online editions will continue, they said.
   Newspapers in Kashmir reported raids by police on their offices, arrest of employees and seizure of printing plates. Greater Kashmir, the largest circulated daily in the Valley, said around 50,000 copies of their newspaper were confiscated today.
   "This is a press emergency in Kashmir. This kind of gag is not the first but this time the government has formally banned us from publishing newspapers. We don't know when it will be lifted," said Shujat Bukhari, editor of Rising Kashmir.
   Senior government sources told NDTV that the gag was ordered because the distribution of the newspapers would mean movement of vehicles in violation of the eight-day long curfew in all 10 districts.
   Cellphone and internet services remained disabled in large parts of Kashmir to prevent the spread of rumours that could provoke violence. All telecom operators had been asked to suspend services yesterday.
   Cable operators said that they had been allowed to restore their services but warned not to carry Pakistani channels. "We have not received anything in writing but we were told to shut the operations. Police didn't given us any reason but we had to follow the order," Rufail Shafi, a cable operator, told NDTV.
   Amarnath Yatra, suspended amid the violence, resumed from Jammu today under tight security.
   More than 2,000 have been injured in violent protests that broke out after the killing of Burhan Wani, poster boy of Kashmir's new-age militancy, last Friday.

Some clarifying facts I am searching for are: how many of the 41 reported dead are authorities, and how many are civilians; and of the civilians, how many are protestors and how many are uninvolved bystanders; similarly, how many of the 2000 reported injured are authorities, and how many are civilians; and of the civilians, how many are protestors and how many are uninvolved bystanders. I am a nuetral foreigner located in Kashmir, currently with access to internet through broadband, but affected by extended curfews and strikes and lack of mobile service. My only access to news now is through neighborhood rumors (of both separatist sentiment and fear-of-separatist sentiment) and online news, so I am eager to see the facts collected here.Nomadshepherdess (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

No need for list of civilians killed

I wonder for what reason the list of dead civilians has been added. Articles about unrest or any fatal incident don't contain list of killed civilians. These people are not individually notable. As such I don't see any reason to add their names. The list should be removed. Do you agree? 117.214.245.178 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the list is not encyclopaedic. But I don't mind keeping it around till the situation calms down, as a mark of respect for the dead. The services are shut down in Kashmir right now and people that can get through to us will be able to access the information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Wikipedia is not a place to honour or mark respect for the dead. Your reasoning is insufficient and doesn't even seem to be following the rules. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The list was in violation of several policies I recently took time to read about including WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:DUE and possibly even WP:SOAPBOX and hence I removed it as it was directly against what the policies say. Please follow the policies not your own personal opinion. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV

The editor who created and added a lot of text in this article has been confiremd to be a sockpuppet. He had been repeatedly editing some articles and shaping them according to a POV favourable to Kashmiris. This is also apparent here as the article seems to be favouring Kashmiri POV and is presenting them as victims all the while omitting other viewpoints which might not think so. The article also reads like a newspaper in several places. In fact you can clearly read the article to confirm so. A few examples of the above raised issues are:

• The communal polarisation in India and the violence targeting Muslims are widely discussed in Kashmiri homes.""
• The militant wing (Hizbul Mujahideen) commanded by Burhan Wani has been dubbed "new-age militancy." It has recruited local youth, educated and middle-class, who are conversant with social media and not afraid to reveal their identities. They have achieved an immense popularity among the Kashmiri population. When Waseem Mall and Naseer Ahmad Pandit were killed by security forces, tens of thousands of local Kashmiris came to attend the funeral and the funeral rites had to be repeated six times to allow all the mourners to participate. - Downright unnecessary especially in case of deaths of other militants and also contradictory to facts as Wani wasn't the only leader of Hizbul Mujahideen, the group is even older than him.

• According to a police official, there were misgivings within the security establishment against killing Wani owing to his popularity, but they were not heeded by the authorities. Wani left home to become a militant at age 15 after an an incident with the police that humiliated him. The Kashmiri youth angered by the "never-ending militarisation" of the Valley were drawn to him and his constant presence on the social media made him a household name. - This is under a section called "Operation against Wani", even though it shouldn't be there and is undue especially the last two sentences about Wani leaving home and why the Kashmiri youth were drawn to him which hy the way is a non-neutral POV copied from the source without mentioning the one who said it.

• Protestors have come back to the streets in all parts of the Valley, and demonstrations and stone throwing "have not stopped" since the news of his death. - Reads like a newspaper.

I suggest this article be edited to show a neutral POV and be re-written in a proper Wikipedia style. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

All the passages you quote are mine, and not of any sockpuppet. Since the article is describing events that are taking shape even as we are writing, it is bound to be a bit like news. I don't see any harm in that. Neither do I see anything wrong with "Kashmiri POV." It is after all their unrest we are talking about. If you have other sources and viewpoints that need to be covered, please feel free to bring them up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok I didn't know it was you who added it. But regardless POV should remain neutral and shouldn't belong to any one specific group. Besides I didn't say it contains "Kashmiri POV", I said it favours "Kashmiri POV" of the situation. The article seems biased. Also you're reasoning that it's bound to be like news seems unreasonable, it is quite easy to change the language of a sentence at least in this case. The language at several places does not seem in line with Wikipedia standards. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made edits in some sentences. The one which I said reads like a news, has had its language changed. Although the language is changed, the information being presented is still the same. If it's ok or not, do inform me. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

With regard to in-line attributions, here are the principles I use. When it is an analysis or interpretation of facts, I attribute it. When it is factual information, but multiple sources give different versions, then I use attribution for each of them. But when it is factual information not contradicted by other equally reliable sources, I don't use attribution. For example, the fact that Burhan Wani became a "household name" because of his social media presence is expressed in tons of sources [1]. It is not appropriate to attribution for this "fact." WP:NPOV tells you not to state facts as opinions, nor opinions as facts. We have to know how to distinguish between the two, even though sometimes the borderlines can be blurred. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The term "new-age militancy" is also widely used [2]. I don't exactly know how it came into being, but we definitely need to mention the term found in reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Coming to your objections stated above:

• Downright unnecessary especially in case of deaths of other militants and also contradictory to facts as Wani wasn't the only leader of Hizbul Mujahideen, the group is even older than him. - This article is neither about Wani nor about Hizb. It is about Kashmir unrest, which is widespread among the population according to the sources (predating Wani's killing by almost a year.) What happened with Wani's killing appears to be a consequence of the unrest rather than the cause.
• This is under a section called "Operation against Wani", even though it shouldn't be there and is undue especially the last two sentences about Wani leaving home and why the Kashmiri youth were drawn to him which hy the way is a non-neutral POV copied from the source without mentioning the one who said it. - I disagree. This explains why Wani's killing triggered the explosion. I have no idea what you mean by "non-neutral POV." I think you are still mistaking me for the sock. Or you better explain what you mean by "neutral" and "non-neutral." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I never mistook you for the sock. I only thought the edits were by the sock, you should pay attention to what others are saying. Besides you are right at some points though the article at places does read like a non-neutral POV and like a newspaper. Language like becoming a household name is used by newspapers and common people, even if you what claim that the other sources too say this, you still have to follow proper language. For example simply change it to he had a wide reach among the Kashmiri youth. Some of what you present as a fact in the article are simply opinions of the authors. And I've already told you what I mean by "non-neutral POV" and "neutral POV". This is because this article seems highly biased in favour of Kashmiris and presents them as the victim. We are not here to do that. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

An anon editor rightly summarized some of the issues about the article I raised: improper usage of tenses and close paraphasing. To be even more short: proper format has not been followed. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

Newpsaper outlets have given up their protest against a ban against them and havr resumed printing on 21 July after a meeting with the state CM Mehbooba Mufti. Please add about the resumption of publishing of newspapers after a meeting between Mufti and editors of the outlets. Here is the source. Thank you. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Curfew has been lifted in 4 districts of Kashmir. Please add about this. Here is the source: [3]. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ I will rework the section on News blackout tonight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

There is curfew in whole valley on 13 day continuously and also not any kind of relaxation. Please read sources which are from Kashmir as they know better than anyone else in the world. The newspaper mentions "The police on Thursday categorically stated that curfew, which entered its 13th today, is on and that there shall be no relaxation in the curbs “till further orders.” Please see the sources

Sleepersleep (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree No action required. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The Negotiations

Section is a blatant copyright violation. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why remove statement of External Affairs Minister?

Kautilya3 can you explain why you think reaction of somebody with an important governmental post who is an ex-General has no business here yet you seem to add the reaction of an author basee on assertion that civil society counts in a democracy? I am not contesting you adding back Arundhati Roy's statement, I'm merely asking why do you think statement of person who is a recipient many prestigious official posts isn't as important as that of an author. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir is not an "external affair." It is not in his jurisdiction. Therefore, his position makes little difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How does jurisdiction figure into this? Does such a rule even exist? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides if you removed it based on jurisdiction, then please note Kashmir is an "external affair" because it involves more than 1 country. Ofcourse Indian government considers its matters an internal affair and I'm an Indian myself, but the basic fact is Pakistan has large influence in Kashmir asides from having part of it under its control. Since a foreign country involved, I doubt how you can claim it is not the jurisdiction of an External Affairs Minister especially considering he was talking about the Pakistan-backed separatists being responsible for the unrest. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There are aspects of Kashmir that involve external affairs. But Kashmiri participation in the 'epic story' of India is not one of those. VK Singh made enough cringe-worthy remarks in his career and this is not much above them. Since we are giving enough coverage to the Home Minister, whose responsibility Kashmir is, I don't see why we need Singh's remarks in addition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I never even included the statement about Kashmiri participation in "epic story" of India. All I talked about was the Kashmir unrest. This isn't about cringe-worthy remarks, simply domestiv reactions. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What an exceptional logic given by Kuatliya. One side Pakistan, an external entity is being mentioned in the article with respect to its involvmnet in the unrest, but at the same time the statement of External Affairs Minister is being removed because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-phrased Use of pellet guns

I've re-phrased Use of Pellet guns. Do you think it is ok to now remove the notice of close-paraphrasing? I believe I have solved it with the re-wording. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016

Important,Please Protect this page as some one has totally changed the article. Sentences and paragraphs have changed, which needs immediate attention. Changes done after (16:41, 22 July 2016‎ Kautilya3) needs deletion immediately.

Sleepersleep (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The article hasn't been totally changed so I don't understand what you are talking about. The only changes that have been made are addition of new events, updating of casualty counts, update of pellet injury counts, removal of unsourced content and re-phrasing of some sentences fof ot to better fit into Wikipedia's writing style. These are pretty normal changes that are made in articles. I don't see how that is a "total change". DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan in the infobox

User:Saqib has added Pakistan in the infobox. But only parties directly involved in a conflict can be added without any special description. Any parties with indirect involvement for eg, like supporting must be mentioned with a special description. For eg, in this case Pakistan should be added under Kashmiri protesters and Kashmiri separatists like this:
"Kashmiri protesters
Kashniri separatists
Supported by:
Government of Pakistan"'"

Will it be ok if such a change is made in the infobox? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Kautilya3 for input. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable sources mention that Pakistan is involved in the current protests. So there is no need for it in in the infobox.

Saqib has also added a citation to a news report from Radio Pakistan from 6 July (two days before the death of Burhan Wani). I have been trying to find corroboration from an independent news source, but can't find any. If there is no corroboration, given that Radio Pakistan is not an independent news organisation, this reference needs to be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right Kautilya3. I pinged you because Pakistan isn't involved in the protests and has only given verbal support which cannot be included. So I wanted your opinion. Please remove it if you want to. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also you are right about Radio Pakistan. The article does not concern this recent unrest and the protests in the news article are mentioned specifically as occuring on Wednesday (6 July). It needs to be removed immediately. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I also think that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir needs to go at the top. Law and Order is a State subject in India. CRPF has been sent to assist the State Police, but it is not the driving force. I am also not confident that the Indian Army had much role in the current conflict, even though the Rashtriya Rifles were involved in the operation against Burhan Wani. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Jammu & Kashmir's government is subordinate to the Indian government though. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a very arguable point. I don't think we want to get into that here. As far as the conflict is concerned, Mehbooba Mufti is the "chairperson of Unified Headquarters, the grid comprising army, paramilitary forces, intelligence agencies, police and civil administration."

References

Then I suggest putting Government of J&K under Indian government and putting the army, CRPF and J&K police under Government of J&K. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note user Saqib had added the Indian Army in the infobox. Indian Army's camps and convoys have been attacked during the protests which also led to killing of civilians by armymen according to this source, the source contains confirmation of the civilian killings by SSP of Kulgam. It seems to me that the army was inadvertently dragged into the civil conflict, not by their own choice. They seemed to have only played a minor role in the conflict that too inadvertently unlike CRPF, however they have played a role nonetheless. What's your view about this? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have retained the Indian Army in the infobox, but put it at the bottom. It would be useful to highlight the type of force involved in each case, if we have the information available. We should also be careful when using foreign Press, because they tend to call all armed security forces "the Army." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Causes and goals in the infobox

I'm wondering what should be the motives and causes in the infobox. Here are my suggestions:

Causes

• Killing of Burhan Wani
• Militarization of Kashmir
• Rise of forceful Hindu nationalism
• Communal polarisation and attacks on Muslims (not sure about the last part)
• Perception of shrinking political space due to alliance between PDP and BJP (might seem lengthy)
• Increase of home-grown militancy and radicalisation in Kashmir
• Human right abuses

Goals

• Demilitarization of valley
• Repeal of AFSPA and Public Safety Act
• Demand for secession from India/demand for right to self-determination

All suggestions are welcome. Thank you. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a pretty good try! Here is a revised list: Causes

• Killing of Burhan Wani
• Persistent militarisation of Kashmir
• Human right abuses
• Reaction to Hindu nationalism

Goals

• Demilitarization of valley
• Repeal of AFSPA and Public Safety Act
• Independence/Autonomy for Kashmir

I think the mention of "Kashmir" is important in the last instance, because Jammu and Ladakh are not involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems alright, the only problem I have is with omittance of increasing radicalisation and home-grown militancy as a reason, even the article itself mentions it in the "Background" part. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would put them under effects rather than causes. The dialogue processes that were started after 2005/2008 were put in cold storage when UPA II lost steam, and the new government did nothing to resurrect them. That led to increasing disaffection in the populace, which itself is part of the "unrest," though it is larger unrest than what we are covering in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The list is pretty much ok, as put by Kuatilya. Only thing which I think needs a mention is "Demand for right to self-determination" in the last goal. This may be added to the sentence by Kuatilya or shortened accordingly.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Right to self-determination" is certainly how Geelani phrases it but multiple reliable sources say people ask for "azadi", e.g., That is what I phrased as "Independence/autonomy." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The ultimate objective behind wanting right to self-determination is of course independence/autonomy. Independence/autonomy is the ultimate goal so I doubt it should be changed to right to self-determination. 117.215.224.24 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kuatilya, the source provided by you itself says, "Many of them uttered the word azaadi, but the meaning of that word was different to different people. It meant different things like self-determination, independence, autonomy, self-government or devolution of powers", i.e Azaadi (Independence) in Kashmir's context means many/different things. Then how can you restrict it to only one of them? So, by putting "Demand for right to self-determination" we will be giving an wholesome view and and broader picture of the issue. By writing only "independence/autonomy", it seems that all Kashmiris are ONLY asking for Independence which infact is not the case. Hence, it should either be Self-determination, or alternatively we can spell out everything under the goals, but that may be lengthier.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have added "self-determination" as another option among the goals. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad that we agreed on something.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Date change

The date is written 15 July while as exact date is 8 July as far as curfew in kashmir is concerned. Please change the second paragraph accordingly after checking the proper references. Also read this complete paragraph, there are lot of mistakes as far as grammar is concerned, please change that also. Thanks

DnDamubit (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)