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)

so why does your one man's .... comment not apply to your BBC quote?Killbillsbrowser (talk) 21:38, 3 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. (Mrt3366, please do not alter my talkpage posts in any way whatsoever from now on.) -- Director (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Chill dear !! I didn't alter your posts "in any way whatsoever". I simply removed the misplaced {{outdent}} that's all as it is really unneeded (you could use {{od2}} for this purpose too). Now I won't do even that. These are all beside the point. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome Direktor. As you have said, a brief summary of HRV is all that is required in this article. Personally I think it could be done in a single paragraph as a lot of that information is duplicated in the sections Indian & Pakistani views. So chop away. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@Mrt3366, clearly the template was not misplaced if I restored it [1], while requesting that you cease altering the relevant post (right before you removed it a second time). Unless I am very much mistaken, the title and subject of this thread is the "Human Rights" section. Your switch to a far larger and more complex subject, the size of the entirety of the article, seemed to me to require some sequestration.

@Thank you, Darkness Shines. So how do we stand on this, all told? Are there additional participants who might want to voice their opinion on the issue? Frankly I think there's information there for 2 larger or 3 slightly smaller ones. One single paragraph will probably necessitate the exclusion of more than a few individual pieces of information, even in summary form. A brief reference to information already mentioned in the article does not seem imo to be a particular problem. -- Director (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR Wrong. Your {{outdent}} was misplaced. Your act of restoring it or refusing to accept it doesn't automatically make it valid. Hence, let's just agree to disagree and put this squabble behind us and focus on the core issue here.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the title and subject of this thread is the "Human Rights" section. - Are you being sarcastic? If you are then I am not sure I appreciate this. How can you be mistaken when the heading itself is "Human rights"? That said, I didn't switch to a far larger and more complex subject. You're redundantly exaggerating. I simply cited a reason which is only a part of a broader issue in order to trim the two sections. Enough talk, just do it. If you can then let me do it. The reason I am waiting is I don't wish to "gut it unilaterally" as Darkness Shines so overtly states. Hence, let's get this over with. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in my above post that could conceivably be understood as "sarcasm". Just don't edit my talkpage posts, please, and we'll get along fine - or at least don't edit-war with me over my own post. I also recommend you take a break from the "captaincy" of the thread, try not ordering people ("just do it"), moving their posts around, or declaring yourself an authority on whether or not templates are "misplaced".

As I'm here to try and help with a dispute, I don't want to do anything without agreement of the participants - and I particularly don't want to waste time and effort only to have it deleted and declared "unsuitable" by you or whomever. Can we please try first to agree on a rough layout? -- Director (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

could conceivably be understood as "sarcasm" - don't tell me what can be conceivably understood as what.

I also recommend you take a break from the "captaincy" of the thread - And I also recommend you take a break from the habit of condescending. I didn't declare myself as the "authority" or the "captain" as some might like you to believe.

Can we please try first to agree on a rough layout? - Where have disagreed with you on that so far? I know some of these guys for quite some time now. You hang around for a few months with these people, face the allegations, deal with their chicaneries, pettifoggery and I guarantee you'll be appearing just as authoritative to others. I am slowly reaching the limits of my patience. Please try to understand, this is not the only place where we have interacted in a not-so-productive manner. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with User:MirajMir's double standards comment. The block quote was added by Mrt3366 himself [2] as a resolution. Now he wants to go back to it and kill it. BBC quote is a first-hand quote of an individual (who could very well be a paid individual), but a report from an organization HRW is dubious. CBI's unequivocal statement innocent civilians is tad too much for Mrt3366 (and according to him wiki), because he doesn't like it, where as the report clearly says so. The investigation is still going on: Sir, investigation ordered by government via CBI is complete and the report from CBI clearly says what you don't want here, now the military tribunal is acting on the investigation. What will convince me that Mrt3366 is editing in good faith? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

God!! Why not focus on the fucking content? Why take my name in every second sentence that you post here KBB? Why are you commenting on me? How long am I expected to hold off and tolerate this nonsense?

who could very well be a paid individual - That is your obnoxious POV-based conjecture. (Don't you see anything beyond your dogmatic beliefs?)

What will convince me that Mrt3366 is editing in good faith? - Nothing will convince you, that's it. I just have to deal with you till the time one of us leaves wiki permanently. I am not going to state anything about you any further because that might not seem civil. You're making this personal KBB. Like you've always done. Let's focus on the content and keep our conjectures and sentiments behind. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:54, 4 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)

• "I am deliberately trying to be polite with you", please tell me otherwise??. First you must change your authority behaviour with other editors and on every edit you are sending them edit warring notice. Neither you have any ownership and authority nor you are mentor here. I do not think I have to read again NPOV, may you need?, because in the added passage Musharaf also claims "world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who according to Musharraf are "innocent civilians", why you don't chose to highlight the title of the section from that passage??. Do you think yourself neutral. The title, "Musharaf's claims" covers both passages, and that is neutrality. I ask you very humbly please be a just contributor as others are. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop your false accusation and battle-ground mentality. Like I said he has claimed a lot of things in his life including the claim that "[n]obody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" but so what this is not why the section is significant or pertinent. The important core message has got to be that he conceded Pakistan aided the Islamic terrorists and turned a blind eye towards their existence. On the other hand you removed the title and made it less clear and expanded the scope virtually infinitely. Now, I ask why not make the title Musharraf's claim about Pakistan's involvement in forming militant groups. It is not a POV to highlight an info that makes the section important in the first place. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about Musharaf's any other claims that are not added in the article, anyhow, are you going to compromise title as "Musharaf claims Pakistan's support for Militants and India kills innocent".Both passages are mentioned.Justice007 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care, do it then. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, done.Justice007 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

this is not why the section is significant or pertinent. Sorry, Mrt,you want to make this part of the section pertinent. As far as any neutral person is concerned, both claims 'involvement' and 'innocent killing' are equally likely to be pertinent in his interview (if at all someone actually cares about this guy). Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry dear, but context matters. 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. If a president of Pakistan says his Pakistani government supported and aided and trained underground militants to fight Indian troops in Kashmir in order to force India to enter negotiations, and If that same president over-simplistically says India is killing absolute innocents by discounting the common hazards there, then I am sorry but the former will carry way more weight of credibility than the latter. Don't just gloss over the distinction between the two created by conflict of Interest, in order to suit your POV. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Relation between Pakistan and Militants

Let's delete/merge the section about Musharraf's claims and create a new section with the following content. I think this content (if needed, after a mild modification) is every bit as relevant and needed in a separate section especially because TWO PAKISTANI HEADS (PRESIDENT Musharraf and Zardari) corroborated the claims:

Relation between Pakistan and Militants

Former President of Pakistan and the ex-chief of Pakistan military Pervez Musharraf, stated in an interview, that Pakistani government indeed helped to form underground militant groups to fight against Indian troops in Jammu and Kashmir and "turned a blind eye" towards their existence because it wanted to force India to enter negotiations. According to Musharraf it was because ″everybody is interested in strategic deals with India, but Pakistan is always seen as the rogue.″ He also stated that the world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who Musharraf claimed were "innocent civilians".

Joint Intelligence/North (JIN) has been accused of conducting operations in Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan. The Joint Signal Intelligence Bureau (JSIB) provide support with communications to groups in Kashmir. According to Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon both former members of the National Security Council the ISI acted as a "kind of terrorist conveyor belt" radicalizing young men in the Madrassas in Pakistan and delivering them to training camps affiliated with or run by Al-Qaeda and from there moving them into Jammu and Kashmir to launch attacks. In 2009, then President Asif Zardari admitted at a conference in Islamabad that in the past Pakistan had created Islamic militant groups as a strategic tool for use in its geostrategic agenda and "to attack Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir".

Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices. Militant groups have also kidnapped journalists, tortured and killed them and have intimidated newspapers into not publishing story's on human rights abuses.

References

Feel free to weigh in or not. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Refs 5 and 6 are not reliable sources. They are opinionated articles from individuals. Plus, I think this tilts the balance on complicity of pakistan but completely outweights the statement (or claim) that musharaf made in the same breath about India killing innocents. So a section like this is highly unbalanced and thus should not be in the article in this form. I think the section currently is much better after edits from JusticeKillbillsbrowser (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How are they not reliable? One is an academic publisher, the other is written by Adrian Karatnycky and is published by a reputable publishing house. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

a reputable publisher can publish works of fiction as well. Its not the publisher, rather the authenticity of the content and the author that make it reliable. Tomorrow if Brittanica changes publisher to an unknown publisher, it will still be somewhat reliable. They also publish thesis works of people, so cannot be used as vindication for a statement. In any case, the statement about unbalanced still remains valid Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome to try that argument on the RSN board, I suspect it would fail. Both those sources are RS, to say they are not is plain silly. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor jumping in here: Sources by individual authors do pass WP:IRS if they go through an editorial process of fact checking and/or are published by a reputable publisher. There is no generic or blanket policy or guideline stating that "opinionated articles from individuals" are no reliable sources at all.--v/r - TP 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

agreed. how does one check in this case that they have in fact gone through an editorial process of fact checking? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For example, in Chhattisgarh in India's Northeast, Maoist insurgents reportedly increased their recruitment of children when violence increased in 2005. Some of these recruits were as young as 14 and 15 years of age (CITE). Prior to taking power in Nepal, Maoists also relied on children to fill their armed ranks (CITE). Although Indian government denies recruiting children at all, Human rights watch (CITE) contends that children were being used by police and government as spies, informants, messengers and the like in that corner of the subcontinent. Similarly, children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs. Several boys been killed in individual clashes with police or security forces while acting in this capacity. In these conflict areas also it is reported that children have been recruited by state-backed anti-insurgency forces with the full knowledge of Indian authorities..

This is the exact text from Pg 106. Now what is interesting here is that the authors mention the use of children by India duly quoted with a citation (wherever it says 'CITE'). However, the statement about militants has absolutely no citation in this book. This is just a sentence, no citation after that. So, I don't know how to interpret this. A personal opinion of these authors? Or can be added to wiki (even they say 'reported' in this case, but use 'contend' in the other case - or i may be just reading too much into it). Would appreciate inputs Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And about the other citation it clearly mentions that Kashmiri journalists have been pressured by both the Indian government and the militant groups to suppress information about human rights abuses........ Nowhere does it mention that these militants are trained by Pakistan or are Pakistan based groups, so clearly this reference is invalid for the purpose that Mrt is trying to put in here Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The source states Similarly, children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs. and is used to support the claim "Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices." what is the problem I don't understand. KBB please admit that you simply want to censor this information from going in by hook or by crook. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Since KBB didn't take the sources to WP:RSN I take it that these are reliable enough for his taste and I am free to include the content in the article? And then maybe we can take it from there? I will wait for a few more hours and then carry it out, albeit how on earth could one still object to these well-backed inclusions is really beyond me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A claim like that is pretty strong, it should be well sourced with multiple references.--v/r - TP 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, two Pakistani presidents have corroborated these exact claims in different Interviews, I think that counts for something and besides, if you search there is no shortage of sources. It would however help me exactly what claim do you want backed by more sources. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are either not reading properly or conveniently ignoring what I wrote. I said ref 6 (about journalists) never mentions pakistan and yet you are responding with statement (that I copied) from ref 5 about children. So, it is your extrapolation that you are tying it to pakistan. Ref 5 (about children) does say pakistan and I did not question that. However, I clearly said that about Indian government using children, the book (you cited) is citing primary sources (thus stronger) where as for the statement that you are emphasizing, it has no primary source in this book, so how do you compare those two, this was a question and clarification that i asked. read my post carefully.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Tparis, see the following Pakistan Reportedly Aiding Kashmir Rebels -- Despite Assurances To U.S., Military Fueling India Conflict. Washington Post, The Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate's Sponsorship of Terrorism (Throughout the 1990s, the ISI maintained its relationship with extremist networks and militants that it had established during the Afghan war to utilize in its campaign against Indian forces in Kashmir.), Why Pakistan is 'boosting Kashmir militants', Links between ISI, militant groups: Straw (The British government has said there is a 'clear link' between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and three major militant outfits, Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen operating in Jammu and Kashmir.), Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] (The ISI supplies weapons, training, advice and planning assistance to terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir, as well as the separatist movements in the Northeast frontier areas of India.), The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations → Supporting Terrorism? and Dos Santos, Anne Noronha (2007). Military Intervention and Secession in South Asia: The Cases of Bangladesh, Sir Lanka, Kashmir, and Punjab. Praeger. p. 86. ISBN 978-0275999490. There are more. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But I haven't seen anything to suggest that ISI has the sanction or has been given the role to get involved in these things. from the first reference from Mrt. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol, C'mon Bill, it is well established the the ISI support terrorists. I va ngive you hundreds of academic sources for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

and it is also well established that India has committed gross state-sponsored human rights violations, including organized rapes, murders, staged encounters, extra-judicial killings, torture etc. in Kashmir. I can give you hundreds of academic sources for that as well Killbillsbrowser (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So can I, in fact I wrote and article or two about it. This discussion is about ISI support for terrorists, do you deny there are plenty of sources for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

are we talking about terrorists in general or in Kashmir? I have come across many articles about ISI support for terrorists in Pak/Afghanistan etc., but not so much in Kashmir. In fact I also came across some articles that claimed CIA supported Pak-trained terrorists against Russia during cold war. Disclaimer: But me not coming across them doesn't mean such articles may not existKillbillsbrowser (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not bandy words about what Indian Forces do in Kashmir for that we have two articles Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir or Human rights abuses in Kashmir and we can take that discussion up there, not here since this is not about human rights abuses. I've provided the arguments along with the sources some of which confirm that ISI is aiding Militants and some say Pakistani authorities in general help them. Two Pakistani Presidents have admitted that much what is your problem? Don't divert the issue. Don't digress. This is getting too much. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more about this issue:

Consider appending this

About Rs. 2.4 crore are paid out per month by the Inter-Services Intelligence, in order to fund its activities in Jammu and Kashmir. Pro-Pakistani groups were reportedly favored over other militant groups. Creation of six militant groups in Kashmir, which included Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), was aided by the ISI. According to American Intelligence officials, ISI is still providing protection and help to LeT. The Pakistan Army and ISI also LeT volunteers to surreptitiously penetrate from Pakistan Administrated Kashmir to Jammu and Kashmir.

references

Feel free to comment on it or suggest any improvements. Thank you all. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reckless Rollbacks from Mrt3366

You have recklessly bullied editors by your rollback rights in the recent past. The most recent one [3], you rolled back to your own old edit, killing everything in between by myself, [4] from User:Darkness Shine and MirajMir while only providing explanation in the edit for edit warring from User:MirajMir. This is atrocious. I am looking for avenues and collecting the other evidence to report. Meanwhile, you are requested to stop. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

For the third time in few hours, I think that excessively lengthy quote could be improved and shortened to save space by paraphrasing especially because it is not as rare as a first-hand eye-witness's recountal. It is merely a copy from the HRW page. See WP:QUOTEFARM.

And BTW I didn't use rollback, I used edit summaries while reverting stop maligning me this way. It's redundant and irrelevant here. Also constant belly-aching about how I am bullish is getting too much for me. I am humbly asking you to stop this behavior as it's not seeming polite. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda involvement

Nobody thinks they have been involved in the dispute, yet we have a huge section devoted to this, I propose we remove it and add a line or two to a section on militancy in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove the content. I think that section - at the most - might be trimmed a bit. But the contents are valuable and well-sourced. Moreover, if nobody believed that Al-qaeeda was involved we would not have had the RSs talking/speculating about it. If anything we must depict what the sources are telling us. We as editors are in no position to pick and choose what is believed by people till there is a reliable source backing the claim. The concern is notable and suitably sourced, so keep it. Now if you want to argue that the sources are not reliable, then you might take them to RSN.

For me it's simple:
if there is no reliable source: delete the content.
If there are two reliable sources backing claims that are contesting each other: state both neutrally. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not a question of RS. The section starts with talk of Al-Qaeda involvement. The rest of the section is devoted to saying, well no their not involved at all. So my suggestion is a section on militancy in the region (see you section above which would also go into such a section) and have a few lines or a paragraph at most on this non event. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"the section is devoted to saying, well no their not involved at all" - maybe I'm not reading it as you are, but I think it's not exactly same as saying that they are not involved at all. The section has multiple statements that imply a close connection between Al-Qaeda and Kashmir. I am in favor of two sections. No, actually I am not so much against removal of the section "Al-Qaeda involvement" as I am against a vague name of the section which will be inevitably needed to accommodate the contents of this section.

My primary objection is that should we choose as broad a section heading as "militancy" it would be undue. I apprehend, basing upon my experience dealing with these articles, that all sorts of random gibberish and unreliable speculations about non-notable incidents and misrepresentation of sources will be inserted to blur these Presidents' overt and radical admissions. Make no mistake, we won't be able to keep this article in a perennially protected mode nor will we be able to take part in all the discussions. I think there has got to be a more specific section name that indicates — to put it quite bluntly — how Pakistani government is using terrorist organizations to fight Indian troops and also in order to frame Indian side of Kashmir as a turmoil-laden land. Which Two Pakistani Presidents have already admitted on two separate occasions.

I hope I am clear enough. We must present the viewpoints fairly in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. Yes, if Indian presidents and all other reliable intelligence organizations start accepting that India is using terrorism to fight proxy wars in Pakistani-Kashmir, I will accept another section with a heading "Relation between Indian and Militants". Till then I am against any step that requires a blurry name of the section. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TERRORIST we cannot use terrorist in a section heading, only in content when attributed. As such such a section needs to be called Militant actions or similar. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DS I would have to say Al Qaeda issue is an important one and we should keep the section. At one time AQ was the premier jihadist organization of the world and ANY involvement in this conflict is inherently notable IMO. Our friends from across the border have always tried to portray kashmir militancy as a justified indigenous uprising rather than an Islamist one. for a while US believed that AQ was fomenting trouble in Kashmir and trying to provoke war in order to relieve pressure on Taliban in FATA and Afghanistan. Plus Ideologically AQ has been supporting Kashmir separatists all along[5]. At one british special forces were hunting for OBL in Indian kashmir. i also found it very fascinating that OBL was finally killed in abbottabad which is a stones throw from LOC--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikireader41, I agree with your comments. Al-qaeda has got every reason to be active there. There isn't a reason why they shouldn't.

DS, I am not asking you to use the word "terrorist" in the heading, am I? Where did you get that impression from? I am simply asking you to create one section dedicated to disseminate information about Pakistan's involvement with the terrorists to pursue disingenuous geo-strategic agenda in Indian-administered Kashmir. In future we might add another section about India's usage of militants if enough number of neutral and credible sources (without apparent COI) state it explicitly. Now, we all know that there are sources which assume the camaraderie-based connection between Pakistani Government and heinous Militants is a fait accompli. All I am saying is that we must not gloss over the difference. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct links found for some external dead links.

I have found some dead links on this page but don't have sufficient permissions to edit this page. So I'm suggesting the correct links for these dead links. Someone with the necessary permissions should make the edit.

• Timeline since April 2003: India-Pakistan Peace Process since April 2003
• Zardari expects world to come up with $100bn,Dawn (newspaper): Zardari expects world to come up with $100bn
• Revised Statute from The UK Statute Law Database: Indian Independence Act 1947 (c.30) : Indian Independence Act 1947
• Kashmir policy: an overview by Shamshad Ahmad, Dawn 2004-08-05 : Kashmir policy: an overview
• Congress wants Pakistan declared terror state, Dawn, 2009-02-08 : Congress wants Pakistan declared terror state

Dalilida (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally thank you and will carry out your proposed edit asap. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done it. Hope it is alright. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Covert support of Pakistani army to infiltration

Please add covert support to barbaric infiltrators by Pakistany Army. Otherwise this will be a biased and worthless article.111.91.75.72 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indian media twisting words of Pakistan officials to show Pakistan as being soft? Current issues section of article

Pakistan has always stated that it can calmly continue to fight without any issues, as Pakistan has a population of 200 Million outnumbering the entire north west India bordering Pakistan and has enough ammunition to fight 3 years of protracted war non stop. However Indian media has continuously covered the topic of Pakistan and the un probe as being soft. Whenever the Indian media has asked the opinion of Pakistan governement on what should be done, they have replied that the UN should be present to see who is violating the ceasefire. However Indian media has taken this and seems to be twisting it to show Pakistan as being soft. At the same time neither has India taken a step forward and fires from where it stands and neither have they declared war on 200 Million Pakistanis. Perhaps this strange twisting of words of the Indian media can be put in the current issues section of the article. Power of 200 Million (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like America and Israel have started their usual cover fire for India by doing bombings in Pakistan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uCPx1ed-R4, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICHN2efXczk. They have got the same tiny minute number of muslim extremists on their payroll which they use all over the muslim world. The same people that act in front of their cameras and try to cause trouble in Pakistan. Obviously this is never going to effect the two hundred million Pakistanis. About Indian media they have been the same for decades its the same rhetoric by the Indian media. For decades Indian media has been making videos of alleged cease fire violations. In the 2001-2002 conflict the Indian news media were making hundreds of videos a week demonizing Pakistan its the same old rhetoric.

The Indian government already has its hands full, two days ago 10 Indian soldiers were killed. The naxals killed them off in a gory way by gouging out their eyeballs, cutting their tongues and putting bombs inside the stomachs of the dead bodies of Indian soldiers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7EjG4S64yg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5l3Otm0pUQ. But of course western media will ignore these news. All this should be summarized and explained in the article. 49.176.6.240 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Section on Indian propoganda should be added to the main article

Everyone knew from the beginning that the Indian army had mutilated the bodies of the 2 dead Indian soldiers to use as propoganda against Pakistan. It should be mentioned in the page that Pakistan referred to UN to check the bodies for evidence on who carried out the mutilation but India rejected the UN investigation and hurriedly buried the bodies. Now India is asking Pakistan for MFN most favoured nation status. Countries give MFN statuts to those countries who they have good relations and want to trade with more in the future. So obviously Pakistan would give MFN status to China. This continuous propoganda of India over the decades needs its own separate section in the article. 49.176.6.240 (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The indian government keeps repeating their same rhetoric of ceasefire violations. Pakistan has already stated its stance that un should be present to see who is violating the ceasefire. india does not want it because it keeps violating the cease fire and tells the indian media to blame it on Pakistan so as to demonize Pakistan. Majority of Pakistanis don't care since they are used to the rubbish propaganda of the indian media. Then there are the same old ridiculous threats of indian generals that Pakistan has been listening to for decades. Power of 200 Million (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like yesterday they had a 10 minute telephone meeting and both sides agreed to maintain the ceasefire http://www.firstpost.com/world/troops-asked-to-exercise-restraint-pakistan-dgmo-590923.html. Today as usual india media is busy spinning it off trying to show Pakistan as being soft even though both sides agreed to maintain the ceasefire. In the past the annoying stand offs at the border would be for months and india would keep violating the ceasefire, now within a matter of 7 days they have been brought to the table and india seems to have stopped the ceasefire violations. Seems like the indian government has realized that Pakistan has more than enough fire power and 200 Million people calmly ready for any fight so they have decided to stop the ceasefire violations. As we go further and the population increases to 230 and then to 250 million and more, these annoyances at the border area will get lesser and lesser. Power of 200 Million (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)