Talk:2019–2021 Jammu and Kashmir lockdown

Unnecessary fork?

There are no WP:PAGESIZE issues with Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, this article is an unnecessary fork and should be merged into that article per WP:OVERLAP.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The lockdown is a notable event. I don't agree with any merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Is Kashmir still in curfew?

I am aware that many elements of a curfew still persist, but the overall curfew is not there anymore. is it right to describe it as "ongoing" in the info box? 183.83.147.81 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. curfew is still imposed in kashmir. now its under the guise of stopping spread of coronavirus, something which was only done in wuhan i think back when the whole deal started and nowhere else. its correct to say the lockdown is ongoing as of TODAY. Mhveinvp (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

By this stage, even local elections have happened. I don't see any reliable sources that lockdown is still going on. 183.83.146.18 (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Until we see an announcement saying that it has been lifted, we presume that it is ongoing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

End date and other original research

Hindian1947, when your changes are contested your appropriate course of action is to discuss it on the talk page and not repeatedly reverting it (read WP:BRD). The new source you have provided in an edit summary makes no mention of 10 February, nor does it support the claim that the lockdown is no longer in place. It states restrictions have been eased. On the other hand, the Reuters article published on 2 September states that officials have stated that restrictions will be lifted 4 September, you can't use that to claim that restrictions have already been lifted on 4 September. The article also makes no mention of 10 February which you are again using it to support. Then there's the complete unverified line about all communications being restored with a contradictory bracketed portion stating the presence of suspension of services in specific areas.

You need citations which explicitly verify the additions and/or changes you make. Most of the multiple other additions you are making appear to be similar instances of original research, some of which verge of irrelevancy (i.e details of tourism). Not to mention you also need to use reliable sources; e.g, not using International Business Times (RSP entry), Republic World (RSP entry), obscure sites like brighterkashmir.com, etc. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindian1947, please see WP:IBTIMES, and consider citing controversial claims with reliable sources than providing unreliable or less useful references. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've mixed up which sources refer to what. Yes it is not February 10, February 5 was when 4G was fully restored across the UT. So the proper end date is February 5 2021. Sources:

https://www.businesstoday.in/amp/latest/economy-politics/story/4g-internet-services-restored-in-jammu-and-kashmir-286694-2021-02-05

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jammu-kashmir-internet-services-restored-7176371/lite/

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/17-months-on-4g-internet-services-restored-in-jammu-and-kashmir-101612564917419-amp.html

And yes your point on Republic and the sources is valid, the articles above mention the same things too so it would definitely be better to use those instead.

And Brighter Kashmir is not an "obscure site", it's one of the most popular local news websites in Jammu and Kashmir, along the lines of daily excelsior, kashmir reader, greater kashmir etc. So that's an unfair claim Hindian1947 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't use the reuters article as far as I know. Here are some sources which state the resumption of 4G mobile Internet (along with other restrictions eased):

Deccan Herald: https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/international/world-news-politics/mobile-internet-services-restored-in-srinagar-budgam-1028063.html

NDTV: https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-news-situation-normal-j-k-police-on-internet-ban-after-syed-geelani-burial-2532369?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

From the NDTV article: Restrictions, including those on internet services, imposed following the death of hardline separatist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani last week have been eased and the situation is "fully normal in both regions of Jammu and Kashmir" - Key focus on "fully normal".

New Indian Express: https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2021/sep/10/amit-shah-holds-high-level-meet-to-discuss-jk-security-situation-2356755.html

Key from the New India Express article: Sinha said the security situation is continuously under watch. “Restrictions were imposed after Geelani passed away, but now they are lifted and the first Friday after Geelani’s death has passed peacefully.”

Rising Kashmir, a major local news outlet: https://www.risingkashmir.com/-Restrictions-eased--situation-fully-normal-in-Kashmir--DGP--91598

Very important parts of this article: "Meanwhile, on Tuesday, life returned to normal after six days in Kashmir. While traffic was seen plying smoothly, most of the business establishments including shops reopened today in Srinagar and other parts of the Valley."

As well as: A senior police officer told Rising Kashmir that on Tuesday restrictions were lifted across the Valley. Now the situation is normal and there is no need to put restrictions and curbs in any place, he said. "There will be no restrictions or curbs on Wednesday in any part of the Valley," the official said.

This clearly shows that freedom of movement, shops, and Mobile Internet (the last major restriction due to Geelani’s death) all returned to normal Hindian1947 (talk) 05:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hindian1947, alright, I can see that there is some merit to it. But please be better with in-line citations, I was refering to the Reuters article because it's cited in the infobox. I might come back to this later once I get time to go through the sources more closely, thanks for your explanation here. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Explanation for content removal

1. [1] - cited source [2] 14th paragraph- it reads "Most separatist leaders are understood to have been detained"
2. [3] - cited source TRTWorld is not a reliable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it failed to generate consensus in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 267#RfC: TRT World hence content removed
3. [4] - cited source[5] is Ministry of foreign affairs press-release WP:PRIMARY hence removed.
4. [6] - also a press release [7] WP:PRIMARY hence removed
5. [8] content is cited with dawn.com [9] - a Pakistani national daily, hence in this matter a neutral source is needed.
6. [10] - cited source https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-issues-rare-criticism-of-india-over-kashmir/ - is seems to be a potential WP:SPS hence content removed

— all these reasons were clearly mentioned in the edit summary, if it doesn't violate the said policies, not convinced by the reason then you can keep the content. Thank you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A little more background info on this. Echo1Charlie attempted to make the above-described deletions from the article. An anonymous editor reverted the changes because they didn't agree with them. The intent is to start a discussion here to see if a wider audience generally agrees or disagrees with these content deletions. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Scottywong and Echo1Charlie: This page was created by a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital, with the same sentence " mostly young men",[11] and since the rampant socking by this user on this page is evident. This IP editor shares same IPs as the one blocked earlier,[12] after the SPI reports. I suppose this page should be protected against this IP socking and Echo1Charlie version should be restored. Azuredivay (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: Thanks for this information. I've looked into it and agree that you're right. I think the right course of action is to behave as if the IP didn't dispute and revert this material. Therefore, since no one has challenged Echo1Charlie's edits, they should be restored. I'll restore them. Thanks. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

External link section

A news article is added to the external link section it is a violation of

1. WP:ELPOV - it reads " avoid providing links... to one point of view"- here the external link provided is that of a Pakistani national daily - the dawn, known to push Pakistani narrative
2. WP:LINKSTOAVOID - it reads - Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject - here external link provided is a news link

hence in my opinion news site as an external link can't be allowed. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree as to Dawn (newspaper) pushing Pakistani narrative. It's the most revered newspaper in South Asia and is Pakistan's Newspaper of record. It is often criticized in the country for being against the state narrative, an example of which was Dawn leaks controversy. So you can't really say that it pushes Pakistani narrative, it is rather quite neutral on it. USaamo ^(t@lk) 18:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit

This content added by IP looks fine to me. Is the only reason it was removed because the IP is evading their block? VR _talk 21:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)