Talk:Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir

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)