Talk:Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Tags

The article is not, nor will it be a hit piece for nationalist POV pushers to beat India with. Also when an inuse tag is on an article, do not edit it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me phrase this properly: this article is about human rights abuses in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the majority of which have been blamed on law enforcement agencies and authorities. Calling this article and my contributions a "hit piece for nationalist POV pushers to beat India with" reveals a lot about your WP:POV mentality and intentions as far as this article is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Let me phrase this properly, you are full of it. An article on human rights abuses does not just cover one combatant, it covers all of them. I had in fact added facts covering India's abuses, however the terrorists backed by Pakistan also commit HRA and this goes into the article as well. You are an obvious POV pusher as you seem to think only India have done wrong in the region, all combatants have carried out hideous HRA. And all will be represented in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Restructure

I'm going to restructure this article. I've removed the dubious content as clarified here as not a violation. I've renamed the section title "India" to a more informative one as the article is already about the abuses by Indian organizations. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The content removal was already clarified above... you should self revert AshLin, please read the talk page before making reverts. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It is your contention that the material is dubious. Clarifying there was only regarding your 1RR status/interaction ban. Please explain as to why human rights violation by militants and ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits is not to be considered as Human Rights violation. AshLin (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that was the clarification I intended to attach to the edit summary. The clarification about the content itself has already been provided in the above section. This article just like Indians in Afghanistan is going to become a WP:COATRACK alleging, or should I say stating as facts, that Pakistan supports "terrorists" etc. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Ashlin, this is what the article ought to look like [1] I will write the entire article in user space then copy it into here, then put it up for GA status. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Denial by India

Sources have been removed in this removal [2]... one source was removed without any explanation and the other was removed along its content on the pretext that it does not support it. I've just verified the source, it clearly mentions and attributes those actions to Indian army soldiers. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The DNA source is a biased POV piece alleging human rights groups as biased elements. Surely, better references are available for the GOI denying the allegations? The second text removed was a ridiculous statement - the reference was okay but not concerning this assertion - it was a detailed report on the Kunan-Pushpora incident. Amnesty International says that the perpetrators should be punished not that Indian Army is continually carrying out rapes in the Valley. AshLin (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And NPOV applies to the content in the article. Whatever wording used in the source is not being used in the article. If you want to add more references, that is another thing (and you can).. but removing this was in appropriate. You should have corrected it instead of blanking the second sentence. The report clearly states even though denials are being made incidents are still happening. And this is not just limited to the incident being reported. See for this as an example:
"Villagers say that army soldiers stormed the village two decades ago, torturing the men and raping the women. The army denied the allegations, and the government determined that evidence was insufficient. But international organizations criticize the lack of prompt, thorough and independent investigations into the villagers' claims. Sociologists say the event has had severe socio-cultural effects, with villagers saying that the night destroyed their prospects for education, marriage and relations with other villages. The State Human Rights Commission directed the government to reopen the case toward the end of last year, but villagers are skeptical that justice will be served twenty years later."[3]
--lTopGunl (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I have rephrased the second sentence replacing "Indian army", with "perpetrators" and removing mentioning of rape from the article. Also I feel that the DNA source is still worth using, just because it's from the Indian side doesn't mean that the source is biased towards, the source is credible and therefore it's worth using. DNA is not a tabloid, it's informative and therefore it's worth using. Any opinions?

--But till decided I have commented out the source so it won't be displayed on the talk page. (Wiki id2(talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC))

I've given my thoughts about the second source, I think the details need to be added (in a neutral but precise description)... the first source has nothing wrong with it and the sentence was actually favouring India's point of view to balance the article. There was no point in removing that source (the only reason evident from the removal is WP:IDONTLIKEIT)... this one should be simply added back. If AshLin wants to include better references as he aspired above, (s)he can do it along with this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Dear Mar4d, your behavior constitutes edit warring and you are obviously looking for big trouble.

  • This source which you edit warred into the article is not appropriate for an infobox, understand? It belongs to an involved party and describes one party as "freedom fighters".
  • On Pakistan's support to organizations such as Lashkar-e Taiba, we reached a compareable consensus on the Taliban. Alleged support should be mentioned when not presented as fact.

JCAla (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, my intent is not to edit war. Instead, I am cleaning up the mess that you are causing in all these articles, currently in the middle of expansion, under the disguise of your "restructuring." Instead of "restructuring" sections, you're actually messing everything up like here. Since this is a human rights abuse article, the point I was making is that there will be different estimates by different sources for the conflict. There is never going to be an agreed estimate. Therefore, all casualty numbers should be presented in the infobox. This includes the Kashmir Media Service. Just because the source has a POV to it does not make it's numbers any less truthful than, say, an Indian government estimate. All viewpoints will be presented. As for your second point, isn't this article about human rights abuses in an "Indian-administered" state, most of which have been committed by Indian authorities and security forces? What does Pakistan have to do with this? Mar4d (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1) No, in the infoboxes wikipedia is supposed to have ONLY reliable and unpartial sources. 2) Human rights abuses are also carried out by organizations such as Lashkar-e Taiba which have been founded and supported by the Pakistan militarily exactly like the Taliban. We already have a consensus on the Taliban which is fully applicable here. JCAla (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this, JCAla, don't make major changes and restructuring on multiple articles when you know they will be objected on.. it only creates confusion. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying what the statistics say. And the statistics say that, over two decades, the overwhelming majority of human rights abuses and atrocities in the state of Jammu and Kashmir have been carried out by the Indian armed forces. Therefore, Pakistan doesn't even come into the equation here. At best, it only deserves a mention somewhere in the body, that too as an allegation, but definitely not in the lead. This article, and the lead in particular, need to cover primarily India as per WP:Weight and WP:Due. As far as seperatist groups are concerned, they may have also committed human rights abuses but not anywhere near the track records of the authorities; many seperatist groups are in fact resistance movements fighting "occupying" forces. That is a completely different topic altogether and would be better covered in an article like Jammu and Kashmir insurgency, not here. And in response to your first point, is there any agreed "reliable" or "unpartial" estimate? Would government sources fit into this category or not? What makes local sources any less reliable? Mar4d (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

We will need to call an RfC on several points similarly to the one done by Whenaxis on the "Indians in Afghanistan" article if you do not agree. I see no way how we could possibly come to an agreement if you want to use a blog-alike website run by an involved party as a source for the infobox and if you want to decide what is noteworthy and what isn't. JCAla (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the number for the time being. I couldn't see the cited source (that website seems to be down right now) but this source puts the figure of deaths from the conflict between 40,000 and 100,000. However, that's the number of deaths from the Kashmir conflict, not necessarily from human rights abuses, alleged or actual. That range is better suited for Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. --regentspark (comment) 23:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pathetic!

Just look at this pathetic article in revenge with creating this article Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. --202.75.53.200 (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello sock, I also created this one. Cheerio Darkness Shines (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Militants

We've been through this so it'll be easier to explain, statements of militants being backed by Pakistan can not be stated as a fact and can not be added without opposing opinions. Suggest a rephrase here, which we can add. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pundits

This article is silent on the ethnic cleansing: Kashmiri Pundits. Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC) : No it is not are you blind? read the seperatist section......Barrot0114 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)This account has been blocked permanently as a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Struck out my comments as they were not factual, actually the article wasn't silent, there was a whisper which I missed hearing. My bad.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yogesh and his pov

User has a utch to add the same content about hindu pundits which is repeated in another section he also beleives an isolated attack on sikhs merits a new section Barrot0114 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)This account has been blocked permanently as a sockpuppet of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Denials

On Indian denials, my opinion is that abuse by security forces, state and central including army, is so well documented that adding denials would be being non-neutral in the effort to be neutral. So I have removed denial section. Also wikileaks has not been removed it has been merely relocated. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Jammu and Kashmir

This article should go into subsection of this article (with main article nav link on top) instead of just see also per WP:SUMMARY. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would go a step further & say merge. AshLin (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
See the talk page of that article. It is expanding at a good rate and long + sourced enough. Merging would be censoring in such case. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
You are overstating the case. AshLin (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a merger, the other article is fubar. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference 20 about kashmir pandits and Pakistan

I have noticed the reference used when referring to ethnig cleansing of hindus and sikhs, the final reference mentions pakistan. My main concern is the credibility of the source I have checked the book on Google books and if you scroll to page 146 the author says "The 1947 unprovoked aggression did not give the desired results to Pakistan in it's nefarious design to annex the region by brute force. Their plans were foiled by the Indian armed forces, vehemently supported by a rock-combine of peace-loving Muslims and Hindus, under local leadership, with their impenetrable will to resist the onslaught. But the Pakistan war mongers rose again" This is on Page. 146

The reference is clearly biased, and doesn't seem to be a factual or unbiased news report, but just the opinion of one man, I feel that is not a credible reference when referring to Pakistan and is worth removing. (Wiki id2(talk) 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

Have you already removed this? Ref 20 currently points to Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction and a search for "The 1947 unprovoked aggression" gives no results in that source Darkness Shines (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote the thing it was ref 20 it's now moved down to ref 22. The book is by M.K. Haw: Kashmir Education, culture and science society.

When you click on the link, in the left side bar of the webpage search Pakistan, and on Page 146 you will see what I've mentioned above (Wiki id2(talk) 21:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Haw is an editor, the chapter was written by S. Bhatt. The publisher is not an academic one, and does not even have a website. The Kashmir Education, culture and science society does not list this book s one of their publications either[4] and to be honest a source from there would be a tad biased in my opinion. I would say it is not good for statements of fact and personally I would remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the references quoted for the ethnic cleansing of hindus and sikhs are biased and quite exaggerated. For example, the number of kashmiri pandits killed is 219 as per government reports and 399 as per the local pandit organisation KPSS which is far less and not even close to numbers mentioned in these references. [5][6][7][8]. I advocate removal of these references and statements there from.Truth4all (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Title

The original title for this article was the right one covering the content. There's already an article covering AJK so that title should be retained. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikireader, there's no "entire state" of J&K controlled by the three nations... there's the whole Kashmir region and their own respective administrative areas within three states. The state can only be called as a whole while describing the region or while referring to the historical princely state which has its own article. The current issues are political and related to the countries in control and should have separate articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking on this issue since I moved the page. Here are my thoughts, Human rights abuses in Kashmir should be the parent article with a brief overview of all the different sections, then we have sub articles for each region. So we should move this back to Human rights abuses in J&K, there are already an article for abuses in not so free Kashmir and I am willing to write stubs for Gilgat and the Chinese administered regions. I will ask an admin to move the article back and we can expand this one to include a bit of everything, thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is now done, this should prevent further argument over what goes were. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong statement atributed to source

One of the statements in the lede said: "The Indian security forces have killed more Kashmiri civilians as compared to human rights abuses which occurred at the hands of rebels.", and cited it to this source, which in fact clearly states that this has not been the case in general, and happened for the first time only in 2010. Relevant quotations from the source:

"For the first time since insurgency started in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80s, more civilians have been killed by security forces than terrorists."

"Even in 2008, when the Amarnath land agitation hit both Jammu and Kashmir regions, out of the total of 147 civilians killed in the year only 57 died in actions by security forces. The rest of the killings, 90, were in terrorist actions."

I have therefore removed the offending unsourced statement. Piyush (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've just observed that these figures are according to Indian government statistics, which can't be regarded as impartial anyway. I will look for a neutral academic source discussing the extent of civilian casualties. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@Piyush, You are correct in noticing the discrepancy added by the above editor. Another editor has explained this clearly here in this section do have a look. --DBigXray 11:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement "For the first time since insurgency started in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80s, more civilians have been killed by security forces than terrorists" is clearly biased and targetted at undermining the human right abuses by security forces. It is contradictory to the numerous human right organisations reports. Also, Human Rights Watch quote "armed militant organizations in Kashmir have also targeted civilians, although not to the same extent as have the security forces"[9]. Statement therefore removed.Truth4all (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted you, the source is not an Op-Ed. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Truth4all, I had a look at the source, and it is clearly not an OP-ed, but a news article from the Times of India. I have rewritten the statement to make sure the source of the statistics is clear (a presentation to the Indian Government's Cabinet Committee on Security). Please try to realize that if a reported fact does not agree with your views on the situation, that does not mean it is necessarily biased. Piyush (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Piyush, DS for pointing out.
@Piyush, that is not true and a bit harsh, I have not given my personal opinion but stated the statement is contradictory to a number of human right organisation reports and is based on statistics from Indian government which are not impartial and not reliable, the stats even do not match its own Indian home ministry statistics [10]. The author has endorsed the governments statistics verbatim and so cannot be considered a neutral point of view.Truth4all (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry if you found my comment harsh. I was was just trying to be clear in my objections, but I might have have come off as too acerbic: unconditional apologies anyway. However, I do not quite agree with you that the statement is biased in the sense that it should not be included in the article. I believe the Wikipedia policy is that then when there are multiple points of view on a subject, due weight is to be given to all of them. I think the current version (which clearly states what data is due to the Indian Government and what is due to Human Rights Watch) satisfies this requirement, but the one without the GOI's view will probably not. What do you think?
Secondly, the source from SATP you quoted is rather incomparable to the Times of India source for two reasons: first, it is only partly derived from Home Ministry sources (only the second column: look at the ** mark) and second, it does not break up civilian deaths as those caused by security forces and those caused by militant groups. Piyush (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is the source from Home Ministry where SATP derives from [11] and is exactly the same. It does not give the breakup, however as you can see the total number of civillian's killed in 2008 is given as 91 while the article states 147 and the number killed given for 2009 is 71 while the article states 83, which make you think how reliable the figures are and the conclusions made there of. I agree with the Wikipedia policy regarding multiple points of view however Human Rights Watch is a neutral party while GOI is not. The GOI stats have always been quite contrary to the reports by human right organisations which report thousands killed by security forces[12][13]. The APDP (Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons) who reported the existence of mass graves initially [14] claim over 70,000 killed by Indian security forces[15]Truth4all (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I believe you are citing the table on Page 7 of the document. For 2010, of course, the data in the TOI article would be incomplete (since the article was published in the middle of the year). As for 2009, the discrepancy seems to be exactly 1: the article says "of the total 83 civilians killed in the state, only 11 had died in actions by security forces", while the table lists 71 civilians dying in terrorist strikes (as opposed to 72, which the article seems to imply). However, if you and other editors believe that a discrepancy of 1 is significant then of course, you can remove the sentence.
Secondly, regarding the bias of GOI, I am not sure that even assuming that GOI was biased in a way that HRW wasn't, I don't think the right way to handle this is to simply remove all claims by GOI and put in all claims by HRW. I think the right thing to do would be to put in the claims by GOI, as well as the claims by HRW, after demarcating clearly which statistics are claimed by whom. Perhaps the other original sources from which HRW gets its data could be considered the arbiters of disputes. Piyush (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

section Indian Security Forces

Truth4all stop bombarding and edit warring the refs into the article. This is WP:Citation overkill discuss the statement that you want to be included and show how it supports the content.--DBigXray 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I had explained the statement on my talk page as Darkness shines after reverting by edit had put the Question there. I have not bombarded but added additional references as there are a large number of reports of human right abuses at different times by many different sources of different abuses. I am discussing the statement here again. I have provided a number of citations not just the HRW report mentioned by Darkness Shines including other reports from HRW, amnesty international, UNCHR and others. These are only few of the reports from the said organisations and many more are on their websites which I have not included to avoid citation overkill. The human right abuses by Indian security forces are widely documented and established by human right organisations. Thousands of Kashmiris have been killed with some reports estimating upto 100,000 and majority allegedly by Indian security forces. In addition the discovery of mass graves now numbering over 6000 in only few districts are filled with thousands of Kashmiris allegedly killed by Indian security forces in enforced disappearances and false encounter.Truth4all (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes human rights abuses are well documented, by both Indian security forces and terrorists. However I have yet to see a source saying 100,000 have died at the hands of just the security forces. Were is your source for 6000 mass graves? And not an opinion piece an reliable source is needed for this. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I have mentioned thousands of Kashmiris have died and by some reports upto 100,000 [16] and majority of abuses are reported to be committed by Indian security forces including unlawful killing, torture and enforced dissappearances[17]. As I keep repeating please go through the numerous other reports available besides the ones mentioned (to avoid citation overkill), like these recent ones from HRW[18] and amnesty[19] which state unlawful killing, torture and dissappearance of "thousands" of Kashmiris. Regarding the issue of mass graves, the state human rights commission had identified over 2700 mass graves in september 2011 [20] and the number has increased to over 6000 by now.[21][22] Truth4all (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Your first source does not say 100'000 killed, it says 50'000 with some reports saying up to 100'000. You misrepresented the source. It is also an Op-Ed originally published in the Letters from section of Foreign Affairs.[23] Your second source, also an Op-Ed does not say the majority of killings were carried out by security forces that I can see. Your Amnesty source [24] does not mention thousands killed, so please tell me were you are getting these numbers from? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do not misquote my statements, I have stated as in the source[25] "by some reports" upto 100,00 have been killed and the source you are undermining as Op-ED is from the Human Right Watch Director[26] which is backed by the numerous reports by the human right organisations like these[27][28][29][30][31][32] and many more as well the recent findings of mass graves where thousands of Kashmiris have been allegedly dumped by Indian security forces in unlawful killings, custodial deaths and enforced disappearances[33][34][35]. That is where the numbers come from.Truth4all (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
They are Op-Eds, and can only be used when attributed. Your source for 6000 mass graves is of no use at all, it is also an Op-Ed. One of your sources in fact directly contradicts it[36] "Amnesty International urges the Government of India to launch urgent investigations into hundreds of unidentified graves discovered since 2006 in Jammu and Kashmir." And none of those sources say the security forces have killed the majority at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
"They" are not Op-Eds only, please do not make false generalisations. I have provided other reports describing human right abuses by Indian security forces and there are many more and since you keep on ignoring and misinterpreting them I am quoting few here,
"Hundreds of men, women and children have reportedly been extrajudicially executed in four successive years by the security forces, often in reprisal for attacks on their own personnel. Many other human rights violations are outside the scope of this report. They include hundreds of extrajudicial executions and "disappearances" as well as the detention of many thousands of political prisoners held for many months or years without being brought to trial[37]."The brutality of torture in Jammu and Kashmir defies belief. It has left people mutilated and disabled for life. The severity of torture meted out by the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir is the main reason for the appalling number of deaths in custody".[38]."For their part, Indian troops continue to summarily execute detainees, kill civilians in reprisal attacks and burn down neighborhoods and villages as collective punishment for those suspected of supporting the militants"."The summary execution of detainees by the Indian army, the Border Security Force (BSF) and other security personnel has been a hallmark of counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir. There is no precise figure for the number of persons killed in custody since the conflict began in 1990, but records kept by human rights groups suggest that the numbers are at least in the hundreds, and perhaps higher"[39]."We have been gravely concerned for a long time about the high level of human rights violations in the state where thousands of people have been tortured and killed in custody, extrajudicially executed or ‘disappeared’. Such abuses have been carried out with virtual impunity as the political will to address them has been lacking under previous governments".[40]."Hundreds of civilians, including women and children, have been extrajudicially executed. Often these deliberate killings have been disguised by officials claiming they occurred in"encounters" or "cross-fire". They continue to be regularly reported. Such killings and hundreds of deaths in custody -- by far the highest in any Indian state --are facilitated by laws that provide the security forces with virtual immunity from prosecution [41].
And in regards to finding of mass graves[42][43][44][45], "Indian security forces have long been responsible for enforced disappearances-that is, they deny having custody of an individual, typically in conjunction with their torture or extrajudicial execution. Kashmiri human rights defenders say that at least eight thousand people have "disappeared" since the conflict began; most were last seen in the custody of troops"[46].“The Indian security forces have ‘disappeared’ countless people in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989 and staged fake encounter killings while fabricating claims that those killed were militants”[47]."The police report concludes that there is “every probability” that the remaining over 2100 unidentified graves may contain the dead bodies of [persons subject to] enforced disappearances”[48]. "Kashmiris believe that many of the thousands "disappeared" over the last two decades were dumped into unmarked graves. The government has ignored calls for an independent investigation by human rights groups to determine the fate of the victims"[49]."For years, Kashmiris have been lamenting their lost loved ones, their pleas ignored or dismissed as the government and army claimed that they had gone to Pakistan to become militants. But these graves suggest the possibility of mass murder"[50].“Recent revelations have confirmed what families in Kashmir have been alleging all along,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Indian security forces have ‘disappeared’ countless people in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989 and staged fake encounter killings while fabricating claims that those killed were militants”[51].Truth4all (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Support adding this to the article. It's relevant and sourced. Please proceed with adding it in but make sure that you don't copy paste the text from there. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
T4a, look at your sources, read what they say then look at the edit you made. The most of your quotes above say hundreds killed, only one says thousands. Mass graves are not good for statements of fact as you used them for, given they contain "Kashmiris believe" "graves suggest the possibility" these sources are not making statements of fact, but you are using them for just that purpose. If you add the same content again I will have little choice but to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
DS, Pay attention to dates. These reports are from different years since the conflict like this one from 1995 ""Hundreds of men, women and children have reportedly been extrajudicially executed in four successive years by the security forces"[52]. This report describes killings of hundreds of people in just 4 years into the conflict and there are numerous other reports from subsequent years. The later reports state thousands killed by Indian security forces like this one from 2002, "thousands of people have been tortured and killed in custody, extrajudicially executed or disappeared"[53]. And the mass graves of murdered Kashmiris by Indian security forces is a fact confirmed[54].Truth4all (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Let him clear the burden first instead of citing "citation overkill"... that's funny when he brings refs you remove them calling them too many, lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually no, I cannot do the math, and Neither can you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely and we do not need to.Truth4all (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(out)Please do not change your comments after others have responded as you have here[55] Darkness Shines (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support adding reliably sourced content into article. Please be WP:BOLD and help expand/improve the article with the mentioned sources. If you require any help, feel free to voice your thoughts here. Mar4d (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I believe to be a dispassionate assessment of the section. It is extremely poorly written, with phrases about extrajudicial killings sprouting in completely unrelated sections for no reason. I know that extrajudicial killings are probably the most important issue connected with this topic, that need to be emphasized. However, what that means that there has to be one sub section (probably the first) stating their instances and importance. What it does NOT mean is that references to it have to crop up in sub-sections about other things. Secondly, sections on Fake encounters and Extrajudicial Killings desperately need to be merged: those are two names for the same things, and having separate sections just takes away from the importance of this issue. Piyush (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The POV template, again

So now it is being edit warred into this article based on the usual WP:OR. This from SMS is amusing, [56] a link to a section in the Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir article, which has no source that I can see which says the Pakistani backed terrorists are carrying out their killings because of human rights abuses. So either provide a source which says this is so or the template will go. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuses are greatly related to separatist movement and many articles exist on that, I Protest forexample. Stop pushing your POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I Protest is a song, I asked for sources which directly link the insurgency to human rights abuses, I did not ask to be serenaded. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
And I provided you with one of the many articles that justify it with sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
TG Wikipedia is not a reliable source, either shit or get off the can. Sources or template goes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
And what makes you think I'm using the wiki as a source? Read my comments again. Don't bother replying to me next time ever if you can not follow WP:CIVIL. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"And what makes you think I'm using the wiki as a source?2 The fact that you pointed to a wiki article and not actually provide a source I suppose. Look, if you are not going to provide a source then do not bother to comment, you just waste my time doing that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

POV

The article does not provide what the name suggests, that may be because it‘s written from the Indian and Pakistani point of view not from a neautral.

  • Kashmiri Separatists don‘t carry weapon, how can they be perpetrators,
  • Where from the term “Islamic insurgents“ came? The term only exists here on WP.
  • It mentions 300000 Kashmiri Pandits instead of 100000 displaced, where does it mention 60000 Kashmiri muslims killed and 7000 disappeared by Indian forces.
  • It mentions killing of 36 Sikhs by unknown, but it does not mention the aftermath killing of 6 innocent kashmiris and latter 7 by the Indian Army.
  • There‘s a section on Separatists (Unarmed), but there is no section on Kunan Poshpora, Bijbehara massacre, Costodial killings for which police officers are convicted and so on ....  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Were exactly do you get the notion that separatists are not armed? Of course they are armed, usually by Pakistan. “Islamic insurgents“ only exists on Wiki?I beg to differ If there are abuses missing which are notable then add them. Your tag is pointless. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Provide a single source which confirms that Separatists are armed..
  • Is Kunan Poshpora incident baseless? Read the article, to get a reply.
  • Whom the name is given as “Islamic insurgents“ they are actually the Kashmiri youth, they can be called as terrorists, millitants, but not the islamic.....  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 16:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Which separatist group would you like a cite for? This covers three of then[57] I never said the KP was not a notable incident, I said add it. First you say “Islamic insurgents“ only exists on Wiki, I prove you incredibly wrong and you change tack, where in the article does it say the young people of Kashmir are insurgents? Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Also for weapons used by seperatists and terrorists see India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution pp134-135. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The “Kashmiri Separatist groups“ is a broad term. It also include All Parties Hurriyat Conference, All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, Jammu Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party, United Kashmir People's National Party; the leaders and their associates such as Mohammad Abbas Ansari, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Syed Ali Shah Geelani of these parties are provided with a security cover by the Indian police. [58]
  • Addressed POV and removed the template from the article.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 04:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically wrong sequence of the sections in the article

I see there the Armed forces act (in July 1990 Indian Armed Forces were given special powers) is mentioned before 1989 insurgency that spurred ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs and in turn resulted in the controversial act being extended in that region, why is it so???

This flawed order of the sections with pushes anachronistic POVs. The Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989 and began an ethnic cleansing campaign to convert Kashmir to a Muslim state. It ought to be chronologically sequenced otherwise some of the more impressionable readers might think that armed forces act caused the insurgency. First came the ethnic cleansing and insurgency then came Armed forces act as a retaliation. If I am not given a robust response, I will myself make the change after patiently waiting for 24 hours. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Whats the difference where it is? It is in the section in belongs in after all. This article has become a total mess. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • AFSPA is related to Armed forces, its implemention is the cause root for human violance, its place is in the Armed forces.
  • Ethnic cleansing of hindus and sikhs; Some of the sources say that they left the valley at their own, out of fear. The indian agencies are also blamed for sikh massacre and cleansing of hindus. Read the article and sources.
  • Your point of Islamic insurgents came to make it a muslim state is totally baseless because the Kashmir Valley was already a muslim majority state with 97% muslims.
  • The article presents now the facts with sources from a neutral point of view, therefore it has become total mess? Verry unfortunate. You see the displacement, they got everything they had lost for free at different places by the govt; but why cant you see the 60,000 deaths, 7000 disappeared, 10,000 widows, orphans?  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 01:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Chronologically wrong order of sections, isn't that what I said??? I asked to change the order, re-arrangement. Did I ask for removal of content? Nope. The Ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs-section has to come before armed forces abuses in the article since it came in much before the Armed forces act was enforced in the region. Do you understand now? Give me a good reason why I ought not to change the order of the sections?

And also as a side note, there is terrible violation of WP:UNDUE in this article. There is only one and a half section for Kashmiri insurgents and as many as 9 sections more or less dedicated to Indian Armed Forces, why??? “Central Reserve Police Force”, “Special Operations Group”, “Border Security Force” then again “Indian Army”, and after all this again comes sections like “Fake encounters”, “Disappearances”, “Mass graves” which basically accuse the same organizations. Why this much redundant clutter?? What is going on? See WP:NPOV.

[63], [64], [65], [66]...goes on. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrt3366, your rollback privileges have been snatched from you for reverting the good faith edits of Kashmir Conflict, the article of the same nature. If you dont refrain from reverting the good faith edits of the article, then surely I‘m going to plead for blocking your account. Regarding the article, I‘ve invited some experienced editors... let‘s wait ... MehrajMir ' (Talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:CANVASSING I have been accused of that too. And FYI, "rollback privilege" has been restored my dear. Do not edit war over tagging. The article is tagged because there is a dispute. I am going to restore the tags since it's neutrality is disputed. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(out)That is what I meant when I said the article is a mess, and guess what? fake encounters and extra judical killings are the same thing, we have two sections which are the same for gods sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Mrt3368 changed the text of my edit [67], with the summary “changing tone and balancing“. I want to know, have I copy paste the content and what is meant by balancing which he uses at several places?
  • Are 97% population of muslims equal to 3% of minorities?
  • Are 253,000 population of minorities, who are displaced and settled now over the cource of time, this source say they left at their own out of fear, equal to 60,000 innocent killings, 7000 disappeared persons some of them may be sleeping in mass graves, 10,000 widows and 20,000 orphans, 100,000 mental patients?
and he says there are so many sections regarding Indian forces. Why not mention them by name, when so many reliable sources are available?  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Copy pasted from where? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You cannot copy and paste like that, it is a WP:COPYVIO. I have reverted the article back to before you began to edit it. Read the copyvio policy carefully please, continued copy right violations will lead to your account being blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You‘ve either misunderstood or you pretend to be. See above, I said “have I copy paste“ meaning that therefore my edits will not be changed. When did I say I‘ve copy pasted from that site. I‘ve reverted back your edits.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You said you had copied and pasted, I asked from where and you said from that times link. Now either you copy and pasted or you did not, which is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not copy paste any thing from any source and dont misquote me. Thank you.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 15:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this acceptable now?

Are these (1, 2, 3, etc) acceptable or not? If not, then tell me why not? Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 06:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Most of the see alsos belong, the two about the ISI do not. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"the two about the ISI do not" - what do you mean? Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 08:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thought you were on about the see also list[68] Only one was ISI the other is SST related and should not be here. Facts, not fiction (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The articles on Sindh and Balochistan are not relevant here in anyway, being in South Asia is no relevancy. J&K is currently administered by India while Sindh and Balochistan are the two provinces of Pakistan, not related to J&K. I don't understand why is this being made an issue. --SMS Talk 12:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Some corrections-Sindh and Balochistan are the two disputed provinces of Pakistan. Pakistan army has been alleged to support terrorists in J&K, and they are also accused of rapes and other things in Baluchistan and Sindh. So the 3 articles are interlinked. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
How are they not relevant? All deal with human rights in the region, it strikes me as more than stupid to omit articles which deal with HRV just across the border. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
See also section should list articles that are relevant to the subject of the article. Here the subject of the article is about a region, so it should only list relevant regions not any article on HRV in any region around the world. Here relevant regions are the regions which are governed/administered by the same country who is administering Jammu & Kashmir. --SMS Talk 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The subject of the article is human rights violations, don't be daft. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No, correct yourself, it is about HRV "in a region". Now to list relevant articles to this we need to find that are relevant to this region. --SMS Talk 09:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Online protests

Why is there a section about online protests when there are no article about online protests? The current link is to a crappy rap. Would those restoring it explain their reasoning Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me which policy or guideline restricts us from not having a section on a sub-topic without an article on itself. Current link is a see also link, related to this sub topic. --SMS Talk 12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
You cannot have a section on online protests when there are no article about such. The one that was there is to a crap rap. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
And I said that please give me a link to a policy saying that. --SMS Talk 16:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well "crap rap" explains this and this. --SMS Talk 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think giving a whole section to this song and without a working link is a bit too much of a stretch? Just stating them in a line in other sections would have done it if the link were available and working. Grass-root e-movement who made that who made that up on their own?? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
No I don't think so. The content you removed prior to your comment here wasn't talking about the song, or if it was, kindly quote the relevant text here. About "who made that?", well these sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (a lot of pages), 7, 8, 9) say that Kashmiri people started it. And if the link is not working it doesn't make the content deletable. --SMS Talk 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
One of your sources says this:
Use of Social Media by Separatists:
OSC has since January 2008 observed a marked increase in pro-separatist material and propaganda on social networking websites. Northeast rebels have reportedly used Orkut and YouTube for hate campaigns against the government. Remnants of Sikh separatist groups have been observed to have Khalistan (independent Sikh state) pages on

Facebook and photo streams on Flickr. A Daily News & Analysis report quoted a senior security official as saying that Maoists were recruiting youngsters through the Internet and have identified nine such blogs. The official said Maoists first send e-mail messages after identifying prospective recruits asking them how they can help the cause. The report said that the recruitment was for their under-developed intelligence wing.

A number of pro-separatist blogs and discussion forums also exist on Kashmir, the most prominent of which are The Saints are Coming, Saadat's Blog (saadat.in/blog), Kashmir-truth-to-be-told.blogspot.com, and Kashmir forum (Kashmir.forumakers.com). Many of these bloggers claim to be students from Indian Kashmir and write about independence, the people's movement, and a boycott of Jammu.

Now would you care to explain how pro-separatist material and propaganda are same as "grass-root e-movement"? You cannot include controversial propaganda in the guise of valid information. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
We say what the sources say what you quoted from this source is Indian government POV, we need to add this too that how India's government visualizes it. The other sources as you might have seen talk about this e-movement and is very much related to the article. And be consistent with your arguments, you were first saying it is about a song that is why you removed it while it was not. --SMS Talk 13:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't match with your ideology is "Indian government POV" now??? This was hosted by www.fas.org, not India.gov.in, would you care to explain how did you come to such a conclusion? By the way, if you can use this source to put forward your claims, why can't I use this to resist you? Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Anything that doesn't match with your ideology is "Indian government POV" now", No, this is your POV. Actually you misquoted (first you need to learn how to quote something, I can help you with that) the text from the source. The source never calls the Kashmiri blogs as promoting propaganda, it just calls them pro-separatist. And you are missing this content from the same source:


And you can't remove the content because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a acceptable and Wikipedia is not censored. --SMS Talk 09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The majority of your sources are junk, get decent ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry all of these are really useful sources, now drop the stick. Whether you like it or not, content is suitable and relevant to the article. You need to find better justifications for its removal. --SMS Talk 09:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but they are not. Most are not RS. Some are opinion only. Others focus not on the online protests but only mention it in passing. For instance this source[69] is more about the invective of individuals and has but a single line on the e-protest movement. And as this particular group has but 810 members undue weight should not be given to it. Wikipedia is not for advertising nor pushing a POV. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
First decide what is this all discussing about? inclusion of content in the article or notability of an article being considered for deletion? And be specific while talking about any of the above sources, don't make a generalized statement, so to take this discussion to conclusion instead of beating about the bush. --SMS Talk 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Sms, you cannot just cherry-pick the section of your liking from one source and then say everything else is Indian Government POV. The section I quoted is in that PDF. You cannot pick an choose that way.
BTW, you cannot restore your edit just because you like it, either. It's time you dropped the stick. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't cherry pick anything from any of these sources. Actually it is you who is combining two different things to make a claim. You are combining what the sources says about Maost, Northeast and Sikh rebels with the pro-separatists Kashmiri blogs and discussion forums. And for that you have misplaced the statements in the quote to support your point. Actually after reading all your arguments in this section, one clearly finds that its a clear issue of liking, you started from a song and kept on changing your stand. While I am saying what the sources say. --SMS Talk 16:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

POV and Undue templates

The article has POV and Undue templates inserted by User:Mrt3366. Please comment if these templates are necessary, and what kind of neutrality and undue weight issue has this article? The comments are required to arrive at a consesus, and to remove these templates.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Slow edit warring & possible POV

Would editors please not that edit summaries are for detail the actual edits or reverts. They are not for commuinication with other editors. The place for that is here on the article talk page. If the disruption continues, this article will be fully protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • This User:Mrt3366 may be asked what he has done here and here. He has removed referenced infobox here, its removal is against the rules. Every bit of section Suicide was referenced, he has changed the text and layout of this section and made it useless and he has done this with every edit. The edit summaries provided by the user are insufficient and conflicting. The difference in the article before and now can be seen here. His unnecessary edits may be reverted to restore the meaning of the article and the page be protected.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 06:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:MOS/Infoboxes says: “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.”

    Someone inserted that infobox, I don't know who at this time, but that Infobox was saying that only Muslims have died. Nothing about lakhs of Hindu pandits. If this is not POV, then I don't know what it is. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Infobox provided a brief details of the article. Its removal with the summary provided is unjustified. If it‘s think that it‘s missing something, it should be added rather removed. Regarding laks of Pandits, are they murdered? No source confirms that. This source says 219 Kashmir Pandits were killed and 140,000 displaced, this one says 399 were killed. Regarding the displacements, 506,000 were displaced, half of them are pandits and half of them are muslims according to this source. According to this source 1.5 million refugees from Indian Occupied Kashmir are living in POK and they are not Pandits.  MehrajMir ' (Talk) 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't like the infobox in general, edit summaries are limited by character. Hence I had to provide the core issue, not the general one.

    "Regarding laks of Pandits, are they murdered? No source confirms that" -

    1. If you want sources I can give you some,
    2. In the injuries section, it was mentioned "countless", if you cared enough, you could have put the similar figure on the kashmiri pandits too.

    “Regarding the displacements, 506,000 were displaced, half of them are pandits and half of them are muslims according to this source.” - nope. You're wrong again. Do not put your novel syntheses in the articles. The source says only this much: 506,000 were displaced, half of them are pandits nothing about Muslims being internally displaced. Hence, they could have been from any sect, even Hindus, not pandits but Hindus or Sikhs. Who knows? Besides, the infobox wasn't discussed prior to inclusion and nor did it even show the displacement figures. I don't like the infobox precisely because there are no clear numbers as to how many people died from which parties and how many were displaced.

    P.S. This is an article about Human rights abuse which cannot be properly summarised in a Civilian attack infobox. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment The rationale given by Mrt3366 lacks clarity. Not having figures on the number of displaced Pandits is hardly a valid excuse to get rid of the entire infobox. The infobox will be restored if no reasonable justification is provided. As of current, I believe Mrt3366's slow edit warring policy is highly disrupting the article. Mar4d (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
"The infobox will be restored if no reasonable justification is provided." — Yeah, right. And it will be removed for the same reason. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Links

>> Fake encounters: The expendable Kashmiri (Lihaas (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)).

Links

>> Kashmiris say: '#WeAreSeditious'(Lihaas (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Proposed merge with Rape in Jammu and Kashmir

It seems logical to me. Jyoti (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Disputed status

I've had a revert regarding the legal status of Jammu and Kashmir [70]. Please refer to Kashmir conflict. The territory is regarded as disputed. Mar4d (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, please read section "Problems before Plebiscite" in Kashmir conflict, Jammu and Kashmir is not internationally disputed region, Kashmir is already out of UN dispute list and EU, US and other major power thinks that Kashmir is not international issue. So there maybe "conflict" about Kashmir between India and Pakistan but surely its not disputed region. --Human3015 11:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: I am referring to the current international status of Kashmir. As per all current United Nations documents and resolution, Kashmir is an internationally disputed territory and it is treated as such. All neutral maps and documents, including those of the United Nations, show the territory as clearly disputed. There has been no UN resolution I repeat, as of present that has declared the Kashmir conflict as resolved. Until there is a unanimous international resolution that explicitly declares Kashmir as not disputed, it cannot be described as otherwise. As Wikipedia relies on facts (see WP:V), we have to base the article on that. We can't use vague sources from 2010, surveys and polls, some Security Council procession list on disputes, or random statements by certain politicians to say that Kashmir is not a disputed territory anymore. That is factually incorrect and not the reality. It is also a definition of WP:SYNTHESIS, which by the way what this highly-skewed section is as well at the moment (that article long requires a revamp anyway). Mar4d (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Please stop edit warring and making edits without consensus. You're assertion on Kashmir's status is WP:UNSOURCED and WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no reliable source backing your edit. Mar4d (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have also found several WP:V issues with regard to some of the sources you've used, especially the November 2010 sources. Unless you are not willing to discuss, I see no other way but to start an WP:RFC here. Mar4d (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, please don't edit it till consensus achieved, give me one reliable source from recent times where UN,US or EU saying that Kashmir is disputed region, but i can give reliable source from UN, US and EU saying that Kashmir is not disputed region. --Human3015 12:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, and what you think, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan are disputed or not disputed?--Human3015 12:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, at least tell us, on what basis you are saying that Jammu and Kashmir is disputed region? --Human3015 12:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: As I have said, the WP:BURDEN lies on you and I would challenge you to provide a source explicitly saying Kashmir is an undisputed region (verbatim). I have already explained above that Kashmir is disputed, as per the dozens of UN resolutions, all UN maps, and the mediation of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan. Statements by some US, UK, EU politicians (there are many statements by US, UK politicians saying the opposite too) are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Mar4d (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, I'm not writing there that Kashmir is "undisputed" region, i'm just writing kashmir is state of India which is truth, you will also not deny that Kashmir is state of India. But you are writting that kashmir is "disputed" region, so its your responsibility to provide exclusive source by UN saying "Jammu and Kashmir is disputed region". --Human3015 13:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, see friend, I don't have pro-India views, I'm not challenging whatever written here against Indian army, i do accept that there are human rights violations in Kashmir. But we should have Neutral point of view. Kashmir is not yet Internationally accepted dispute, Currently Pakistan Government is trying and appealing in UN to accept Kashmir as International issue, its not been accepted yet, when they will accept it then we should add that Kashmir is dispute. Thank you. --Human3015 13:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: So you have changed your stance? As per my understanding, you were saying before that Kashmir is not a disputed territory, which is incorrect. When a territory is regarded as disputed at the UN, what that means is that it is internationally disputed. Jammu and Kashmir is neutrally referred to as "Indian-administered Kashmir". Therefore, the correct WP:NPOV way to describe it here would be as a "state administered by India". Mar4d (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, ok, tell me what's your stance about Azad Kashmir, is it "state administered by Pakistan", "disputed state administered by Pakistan" , "integral part of Pakistan", "Pakistan held Kashmir", "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" or "state of Pakistan"??? --Human3015 13:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Human3015: My stance or your stance do not matter. What matters at Wikipedia are the facts per WP:V and only that is what should be presented in articles. And the fact is that all of Kashmir, whether Indian-administered/Pakistan-administered, is disputed territory and identified as such by the UN. There is a UN resolution which clearly calls for a plebiscite to determine the fate of the disputed territory. Until and unless such a plebiscite is conducted or a new resolution is adopted, we cannot refer to Kashmir as undisputed, simple. Mar4d (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, now you are gone to 1947-48 and denying 2010 or even denying shimla accord and various other developments over the time. And I'm again saying that I'm not writing that "Jammu and Kashmir is undisputed state of India", I'm writing that J & K is "state of India". And there is no source that Kashmir is disputed region. But to make consensus and to resolve this issue I have no objection if one write it as "State administered by India", this is my view, others may object this or will not object. But I think this is best possible consensus we can expect even after hours of discussions. --Human3015 13:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
But are you not contradicting yourself again? You're denying that J&K is undisputed, but at the same time denying that Kashmir is disputed? Mar4d (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:, I have said that, "I'm not 'writing' that Kashmir is Undisputed", I have not said that I'm 'denying' that Kashmir is undisputed. Anyway consensus has been made. --Human3015 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dear both, whether Kashmir is "disputed" or not is vexed question. But putting on this page is certainly an instance of WP:COATRACK unless somebody can demonstrate that it is relevant to the human rights abuses. I am going to reword the first sentence to make it a bit more neutral. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That is much better and also reflects the context of this article. I have no objections to the neutral rewording. Mar4d (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d:,@Kautilya3:, I'm also satisfied with recent edit, even in my last comment I said same. Thank you. Kindly maintain NPOV in future too. best of luck to all. --Human3015 14:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_abuses_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir/Archive_1&oldid=1211636437"