Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus/Archive 1

This article is biased, unencyclopedic, and poorly written. It should be completely revised or deleted.
There are so many problem with this article that I'm not sure where to begin.

First off, it provides virtually no historical context. The article starts in media res with anti-Hindu violence in 1990. There is no discussion of the history of the Kashmir conflict dating back to the Partition of India and leading up to this outbreak of violence. It appears to have just "happened" in a void.

Second, it is clearly written from an anti-Muslim perspective. It attributes blame to virtually all Kashmiri Muslims-- "almost all of the Kashmir Valley Islamic crowd killed thousands of Kashmiri Hindus"-- and it describes the violence in an insinuating, conspiratorial manner: "In all, it all seems to be a coordinated way, even though no one takes responsibility for it." All of this is highly unencyclopedic.

A large chunk of the body of the article is just a list of anti-Hindu slogans taken from some Facebook group called "Hindus and Human Rights," which is full of vicious attacks on Muslims and Christians. Again, hardly an encyclopedic source.

Finally, the article concludes with a lament for displaced Hindus who cannot "return to their nativity" and praise for Narendra Modi, with the hope that his recent actions will allow for Hindus to "settle" in Kashmir.

Throughout, and I'm sorry if this sounds mean-spirited, but the article is written in highly idiosyncratic, ungrammatical English, which I would normally go through and correct, but I don't want to be involved in neatening up what is clearly a piece of Hindu nationalist propaganda, not a Wikipedia article.

Now, let me hasten to clarify that I don't object to a discussion of the violence that Muslim militants have perpetrated against Hindus in Kashmir. In fact, you can find an intelligent, well-written discussion of the issue on the Kashmir conflict page. When we already have a sound treatment of the subject, do we even need a page called Ethnic Cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus? After all, as it currently stands, it is just a biased, poorly-written rehash of material that's already covered on Wikipedia. So, unless and until someone with a firm grasp of the subject wants to come onto this page and completely rewrite it, my inclination is to say this page should be deleted, or just redirected to the relevant section of the Kashmir conflict page. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with this. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5ghhr3mja to http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/2003/chapter9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This article should be reviewed.It's completly bias and contains false and incomplete stories.This article is intented to divide people.
The article is full of twisted facts,self made stories intented to create hate against kashmiri muslims. No mention of the real facts which is Jagmohan, that engineered the departures of the Hindus so as to leave the government a free hand to deal with Muslim militants or Bomb Parts of kashmir. How kashmiris lived peacufully while in india and pakistan communal riots where happening. this article doesnt have any positive messages of bringing kashmiri pandits back rather its to divide muslims and hindus furthur so that Some organisations who want vote of particular sect could get their votes. Whatever stories are given in this article should be supported by proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:88:24AF:94B:392A:7437:3F51 (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits by socks
Many editors are blocked as sockpuppets. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  07:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

POV Title
Ethnic cleansing is a POV term and should not be the title. A NPOV title would be ‘Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits.’ or 'Exodus of Pandits from Kashmir'. The latter also is the more commonly used term. See the number of hits for each term on Google please ‘’Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits’’ has 56,400 hits on Google ( https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&q=exodus+of+kashmiri+pandits#q=exodus+of+kashmiri+pandits ) and 2,490 hits on Google books ( https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&q=exodus+of+kashmiri+pandits ) ‘’Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits ‘’ only has 22,700 hits on Google ( https://www.google.co.in/webhp#q=ethnic+cleansing+of+kashmiri+pandits ) and 1,200 hits on Google books ( https://www.google.co.in/webhp#q=ethnic+cleansing+of+kashmiri+pandits&tbm=bks ) Owais Khursheed (Talk to me ) 18:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Reason for exodus; WP:CHERRYpicking one politician Mani Shankar Aiyar's argument
In the last 27 years many Indian politician from BJP, Congress and other parties have given statements on 1990 Kashmiri Pandit exodus. Picking a view few politicians is giving WP:UNDUE importance.

Explaining why including Mani Shankar Aiyar's comments are supporting WP:BIASED sources
Mani Shankar Iyer has justified terror attacks in Paris. This man can't give neutral views on this terrorist related incident.

Selectively picking one politician from one party strongly violates WP:NPOV. From where did he get the facts as Tyler Durden mentioned in his edit summary. What he wrote in Penguin, was written without political bias?

A politician who asks for Pakistan's help to defeat political rival and justifies Charlie Hebdo attack, This makes Mani Shankar Aiyar's views as unreliable for this article.


 * The militants who killed Kashmiri pandits and the Kashmiri separatists are the one who blames governor JagMohan. The armed separatists allege that it was engineered by Shri Jagmohan, then-governor of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, in order to defame the separatist movement. He denies these allegations., Hurriyat leader blames ex-Governor for exile of Kashmiri Pandits. And Mani Shankat Aiyar was criticized for supporting the Kashmiri separatists like Hurriyat leaders.

WP:FALSEBALANCE
Other sources doesn't support the accusation against JagMohan.


 * Terrorist organization offer 5 lakh for the head of Givernor Jagmohan in 1990 (inflation makes this sum more than 5 lakh). This report by India Today praised Jagmohan


 * A full-scale insurgency against Indian rule broke out in the Muslim-majority valley of Kashmir in 1990. Dissatisfaction with India had been building up over the previous decade, along with the desire for independence. In 1988 and 1989, armed young Muslim men began to attack government officials and Kashmiri Hindus; some of these young men even went over to neighboring Pakistan to ask for weapons and money. The custodial killings and torture by the Indian authorities of young Kashmiri men suspected of being insurgents made many more Kashmiri Muslims decide to seek military assistance from Pakistan, which had been hosting the decade-long CIA-sponsored jihad against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. from The New York Review of Books
 * India TV- What led to the exodus of Kashmiri pandits 26 years ago? - A section of Kashmiris who sympathise with the cause espoused by militants point out that the onus for mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits lies on the shoulders of Jagmohan who was appointed as J&K governor by V P Singh government. Their argument is that Jagmohan deliberately encouraged Kashmiri Pandits to leave the valley so that the operation against militants could be launched aggressively and without bothering for the safety of Kashmiri Pandits who were turning out to be soft targets for the terrorists.


 * ''However, Prafulla Ketkar, editor of Organiser, totally disagrees with this version of the explanation.


 * “This is to totally rubbish. The militancy gained ground in Kashmir much before the arrival of Jagmohan as governor of the state. Pakistan's proxy war against India under its policy of thousand-cuts was well documented way back in 1986. After taking over as Pakistan PM in Dec 1988, Benazir Bhutto made very provocative statements regarding Kashmir. Subsequently, open threats were issued against Kashmiri Pandits asking them to vacate their homes. So, how can Jagmohan be blamed for the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits?” Prafulla Ketkar asked.''


 * 4 Indian Servicemen Killed in Kashmir - Doesn't state that Jagmohan was creating trouble.


 * Jagmohan was not popular for his tougher measures among separatists.


 * http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Tic-Tac-Toe/digvijay-singh-is-lying-about-the-exodus-of-kashmiri-pandits/ There are some editors who try to insert this [Conspiracy theory supported by another politician].

While neutral sources mentioned above and others also in the article don't blame JagMohan (I am not linking them here as they are linked in the article) editors will bring biased sources to insert a conspiracy theory.

Marvellous Spider-Man  07:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Also Kashmiri Pandits who were victims of terrorism and refugees (currently not residing in Kashmir) blames pakistan backed terrorism and Kashmiri separatists for their exodus/migration. The victims don't blame JagMohan. Marvellous  Spider-Man  07:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. I know that Pandits are the victims. But Kashmiri seperatists are also party to the dispute here in this issue, and even their POVs are not meant to be censored from representation, for that matter. And its not WP:FALSEBALANCE when it is being supported by adequate sources. In any case, Aiyar is not a supporter of Kashmiri seperatists as you seem to be claiming.
 * A politician who asks for Pakistan's help to defeat political rival - Did you read the source? Where did it say that he asked for Pakistan's help anywhere? He is alleged to have said that "with Modi, talks cannot move forward." And Indian Express article even says he denied those allegations. However this has got nothing to do with the subject in discussion.
 * Regarding his statements on terrorists attacks, he merely said that those incidents occurred as inevitable backlash due to the Muslim persecution in Middle East by the Western world. Such views are shared and expressed by many liberals across the world, that does not make Aiyar any "politically biased" or "unreliable" to this article.
 * Mani Shankat Aiyar was criticized for supporting the Kashmiri separatists like Hurriyat leaders. - You are talking in the context of the Aiyar's recent meeting with Hurriyat leaders. Many politicians, even the BJP ones, like Vajpayee when he was the PM, met Hurriyat leaders when the crisis was on fire. That doesn't make them any non-neutral.
 * In any case, the point is that Jagmohan is widely criticised for implementing his Hindu-nationalist policies in Kashmir, and thereby causing the rise of Islamism in the valley. An internationally published (Routledge), independent & neutral expert-source Praveen Swami, which has been present in the article since long back, says this here -, and that Jagmohan's denial of secularism and his Hindu-nationalist sentiments made the conflict communal, i.e., as the fight between "Hindu" New Delhi, and its efforts to impose its will in the state, and "Muslim" Kashmir, represented by political Islamists and clerics. The same source (on the same page) also says that during Anantnag riots in February 1986 itself, when Pandits were first threatened to leave their homes, it is the secular parties (which were National Conference in J&K, and INC at centre, at that time) rather than the Islamists, who played a key role in engineering the violence to gain political mileage (basically legitimacy) through religious sentiments. Are you going to tell me that this source is also biased?
 * Aiyar's book that has been used in this article, since long before I came here, is a well-published (Penguin Books) source as I have already said, and I used it with attribution. Aiyar neither denied that there was militant-violence, nor said that fear was induced to Pandits due to that violence. He is saying, Jagmohan inflated those fears by portraying all the terrorist violence as communal violence, i.e., anti-Hindu violence. And he is citing the police report from Jagmohan's own book which says that 71 Hindus died out of the 134 innocent civilians who were killed by militants between December 1989 and May 1990, which means that 63 Muslims were also killed. Yet, Aiyar says that Jagmohan decided to send them to Jammu, instead of dealing with the situation efficiently by lessening the fear and re-establishing law and order. This is not a "conspiracy theory".
 * None of the sources you provided particularly refute this argument except a two, of which one is a mere opinion blog in Times of India and the other is a statement of editor of Organiser (magazine), which is an outright propagandist publication of RSS and its Hindu-nationalism.
 * The whole body of this section in the present article majorly represents that Pandits themselves fled because of their fear due to the violence only. All we have inserted is three lines of a well-published POV against Jagmohan, with attribution. You are welcome to add any quality sources that refute this argument beside this content, but you cannot WP:CENSOR this. This one will stay.
 * Please remember that if you use opinions by some individuals that are published in Indian newspapers as the ones you cited here, it'll open the article to use Kashmiri newspaper sources also for such contentious POVs, which are as reliable as Indian ones in this context, as both are parties to the dispute. - Moreover, here is a narrative published in a Kashmiri newspaper that says, according to a letter  written by some "23 prominent Kashmiri Pandits" who fled the valley, the whole Pandit exodus is a conspiracy, basically a "drama", orchestrated by Jagmohan along with RSS & BJP, to protect their "Akhand Bharat" interests, a theory which is synonymous to the one you reverted here. So, this one is not even an opinion per se, according to the report. Anyways, if you use newspaper sources for such controversial content, another editor will come and do the same using other conflicting newspaper sources. That will make this article, a POV cesspit, which I'm sure none of us want to happen. Regards,  Tyler Durden   (talk)  12:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The entire thread is not about removing every JagMohan related contents, but this section is to show that Mani Shankar Aiyar's views can't be used in this article, as it gives undue weight to one sided view. I have given non-Indian source like BBC and New York Times also. I don't have any objection if you insert WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV statement of Kahsmiri separatists and militants about JagMohan as they are related but inserting Mani Shankar Aiyar's views is biased and using it will violate WP:NPOV. Mani Shankar Aiyar's comments are WP:BIASED and gives WP:UNDUE weight and should be removed. You can keep contents sourced from Swami and Victoria, and I didn't remove them as you said above. Marvellous Spider-Man  12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Explain how many editors constitute "We"
You said All we have inserted is three lines of a well-published POV against Jagmohan, with attribution. You are welcome to add any quality sources that refute this argument beside this content, but you cannot WP:CENSOR this. This one will stay.. Who are you say this one behalf of whom? I want to see where the discussion took place as you made the comment before Kautilya3 made the section, "Refocus". Marvellous Spider-Man  12:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL! I used "we" in a friendly manner to denote that all of us editors, together, are developing this article as a collaborative effort. I didn't know you were such a repulsive editor. By the way, making allegations against editors without evidence constitutes aspersion. I hope you mind that. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  13:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * When any editor edit contentious article like this, they will say I edited, not we edited. When you make an edit and then comment on talk page that we inserted (while discussing about one particular edit, not every edit on this article), this signals some off-wiki collaboration, which you admitted yourself. I used "we" in a friendly manner to denote that all of us editors, together, are developing this article as a collaborative effort I have also edited this article before. And my reply: no I was not collaborating with you. You were obviously referring about some other editors. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  13:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Have fun with that judgement. :-) −−−  Tyler Durden  (talk)  13:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And calling me repulsive editor is a personal attack as per WP:NPA. -- Marvellous Spider-Man  15:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Refocus
I am afraid this discussion is going all over the place. The only issue that concerns us here is whether Mani Shankar Iyer's view should be included or not. He is certainly notable, a former central minister, and he has written extensively on secularism and Hindu-Muslim relations. The only grounds on which it can be excluded is that it is WP:UNDUE. I don't think it is. There are a large number of people that believe that Jagmohan persuaded the Pandits to leave. In fact, almost all Kashmiri Muslims believe it. But I haven't seen any arguments being made on these grounds. We are not going to settle here the WP:TRUTH of the claims and counterclaims. We can only describe them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He is notable, but so are many people. We can't include every notable politician's views about this. If Jagmohan has to included then other neutral source should be used. A politician who justifies Paris terror attacks is not a neutral person. I hope Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Owais Khursheed don't come here to oppose me. -- Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  12:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A former central minister, belonging to the opposition party and the largest party in the Parliament at that time, is perfectly qualified to comment on a centrally-appointed Governor. If there are other views that refute what Iyer has said, please feel free to bring them up. I don't want to get into a fine analysis of Iyer's views on all matters here. They are not pertinent. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have located a source OPEN magazine that shows that there was too much politcking going on here. So, I am supporting Marvellous. Let us get rid of Mani Shankar Iyer, and find better sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It can be sourced that the exodus and forced migration of Kashmiri pandits started before Jagmohan was appointed Governor. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  14:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I agree with you. So, what do you say about these scholarly observations?
 * Mridu Rai (emphasis mine):


 * Alexander Evans (emphasis mine):

—  Tyler Durden  (talk)  14:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You can add contents from neutral sources without cherrypicking and WP:SYNTH. The problem, is that if you insert one politician's statement, then you have to insert every politician and notable people like Anupam Kher and Ashok Pandit as they are also Kashmiri pandits like Vidhu Vinod Chopra. And another author mentions that blaming jagmohan for exodus is not true.
 * Rahul Pandita in his interview to Wall Stret Journal- This book always remained in the back of my mind, and in the last few years I’ve realized I’ve been getting more and more angry about the kinds of untruths being spoken about the circumstances that led to our exodus.


 * WSJ: What are those untruths?


 * Mr. Pandita: That the Indian state was responsible for the exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, or the former governor Jagmohan, or because the Indian state wanted to deal with the majority community – the Muslims – more firmly. I think the essential thing I want to portray is that in 1989-90 there was a deep divide between two communities in Kashmir – the Muslims and the Pandits. And the Kashmiri Pandits became victims of the brutal ethnic cleansing which was perpetrated by the majority community backed by Islamist militants, not the other way around. That is one distinction that has to be made very clear.


 * Forbes India- My book is called Our Moon Has Blood Clots. And it’s a memoir on growing up in Kashmir as a religious minority, essentially, Kashmiri Hindus, also known as Kashmiri Pandits—a small, miniscule community that lived in Kashmir for hundreds of years and were forced into permanent exile as refugees in their own country in 1989-90, when an Islamist movement broke out in Kashmir Valley. And we faced the brunt and the brutalisation in a series of violence led by the majority community in Kashmir. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Sumit Ganguly's assessment is right. I think Jagmohan realised that he couldn't guarantee their safety, so he decided to not make claims in that regard. This does not amount to encouragement to leave. The Kashmiri Muslim claim is not supported by the scholars.
 * This appears to be another one of those self-made myths that the Kashmiris believe in. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but at the same time, scholars are also saying that there is the failure of administration in preventing the exodus. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  15:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they are cagey words. Is it the job of the administration to ask people to stay back and offer themselves up as sacrifical lambs to a militant threat that could not be controlled? In any case, this is a far cry from what the Kashmiri Muslims have claimed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but they are cagey words. Is it the job of the administration to ask people to stay back and offer themselves up as sacrifical lambs to a militant threat that could not be controlled? In any case, this is a far cry from what the Kashmiri Muslims have claimed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Scholar Mridu Rai; population of Pandits in the valley in 1990
Is it okay to put Mridu Rai's views at the top? As Mridu Rai is not notable. And even she is notable still her views can be included in the article, but not at the top. If her figures are correct, we need some government records about population to back it up. Scholar Mridu Rai argues the higher figures are not credible since the Kashmiri Pandit population was only 160,000-170,000 before 1990 in the Valley.-- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  02:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Scholars don't have to be notable. They have to be reliable. I do have some doubts about Mridu Rai's authenticity. Better not to put her at the top. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm not the one who took Mridu Rai to the lead, but irrespective of how reliable a scholar Rai is, she is on the positive side here, in this particular context. When she says, the higher figures are not credible since the Kashmiri Pandit population was only 160,000-170,000 before 1990 in the Valley, she has scholarly consensus. Please read the observations of political scientist Alexander Evans (pp 23-26), who studied this matter and these figures in detail. After a comprehensive analysis of all the figures for 3 pages under the section 'How many KPs were in the Kashmir Valley in 1990?', this is what he concludes (on p 26):
 * Regarding the census figures which the other editor asked for, The 1981 census records a total Hindu population of 124,078 in the Kashmir division (the administrative unit of the Valley); 3.96% of the total Valley population. This figure is not of KPs alone, but includes other Hindus living there that year. (Evans p 26) - Here's another source which says that the total population of Hindus & Sikhs in Kashmir valley was 1,57,506, according to 1981 census. The Pandit-population of the valley during 1990 is estimated based on these figures.
 * On the other hand, the AG Noorani's 800,000 figure for exodus, which is mentioned in the lead, is entirely dubious and surprising! Even Panun Kashmir's site says some 242758 people were registered as refugees after exodus. Their number for the total population of the community itself is 700,000. The highest claim by Hindu organisations for the population figures of Pandits is 700,000 in 1990; 350,000 of whom were living in the Valley. (Evans p 23) [even these 250,000-350,000 figures are refuted by the scholars] I'm still trying to figure out, where Noorani brought that number from, since I saw that in this article, in the lead! —  Tyler Durden   (talk)  09:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let us get rid of both Noorani and Mridu Rai from the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, let us get rid of both Noorani and Mridu Rai from the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Is Colonel Tikoo's source reliable?
The content that is quoted above is explicitly taken from the Tikoo's source from Lancer Publishers. But, is that source reliable? My concern is, I have taken the whole content from that section after developing it, to Kashmir conflict also. I thought all of it was well-sourced and reliable. But now as I read several other sources, I don't see these observations in any other good sources like Praveen Swami. The problem is particularly with the Shah Masjid conspiracy, Gul Shah himself raising the slogan of 'Islam is in danger' & even the "many incidents" in places other than Anantnag ('Anantnag riots' is commonly mentioned in all sources) which are "Vanpoh, Lukbhavan, Salar and Fatehpur", where "Muslim mobs plundered or destroyed the properties and temples of Hindus". I think we need to find corroboration from other sources to keep these three things. —  Tyler Durden  (talk)  14:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * More sources here. The India Today coverage seems to be the most balanced one. If there is a Hindu temple in the secretariat, what is the harm in having a mosque too? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine, but I'm not able to access that India Today source. Anyways, what about these two things?
 * Gul Shah on his return to Kashmir retaliated and incited the Kashmiri Muslims by saying Islam khatrey mein hey (trans. Islam is in danger). As a result, Kashmiri Pandits were targeted by the Kashmiri Muslims.
 * Many incidents were reported in various areas where Kashmiri Hindus were killed and their properties and temples damaged or destroyed. The worst hit areas were mainly in South Kashmir and Sopore. In Vanpoh, Lukbhavan, [Anantnag], Salar and Fatehpur, Muslim mobs plundered or destroyed the properties and temples of Hindus.
 *  Tyler Durden  (talk)  18:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is as far as I am able to see on the India Today source:
 * I don't know about Islam being in danger, but there are plenty of sources for attacks on Pandits. This is the best source corroborating. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Islam being in danger, but there are plenty of sources for attacks on Pandits. This is the best source corroborating. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda?
, You wrote "the figures suggested by Pandit expatriates of 3000 to 4000 Pandit deaths are false propaganda. However, no such figures have been mentioned in the article anywhere else. So this is out of context. WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not say "reproduce source". The text you write is your text and it has to make sense on its own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Your whole pagragraph

makes no sense. No "genocide and mass murder" have been mentioned in the article. Are you trying to kill imaginary ghosts? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to make sense out of this, so far I could only conclude that it is undue and pretty much replicating what has been already said (eg, 600 deaths estimate). Capitals00 (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not a good objection. Text is properly cited to RS and is WP:DUE. I am more worried about Anmolbhat's extensive collection of POV, consisting of WP:UNDUE repetitions and WP:TERRORIST issues. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How it is WP:DUE if same statistics have been already attributed to Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS)? Capitals00 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph added by NadirAli is properly sourced and relevant. It tells us that Pandits have been doing false propaganda which is important information for readers to know. A mountain is being made out of a molehil here. There are more serious issues with the page which NPOV editors can clearly see. Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not exactly proper representation of sources. I had modified before it was completely removed. Regarding your understanding about the information, see WP:SOAP. Capitals00 (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion and the objections raised have no merit. As pointed out by Dilpa kaur the objections here are simply making a mountain out of a molehill, if not outright red herrings. This is also longstanding content which was removed under a fake edit summary of copyright violation as the copyvio detector shows us, so the text actually turns out to be longstanding content which the admins were tricked into oversighting.


 * The text Nadir has added (restored) is properly sourced and relevant in aftermath, as part of the aftermath is Pandits doing propaganda. It is definitely much better sourced, written and relevant than Anmolbhat's biased write up which Kautilya3 and Capitals00 are so keen to hold on to. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your copyvio detector only proves that a user on quora.com copied this article but nothing more than that. Capitals00 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

POV edits
Anmolbhat your recent massive consensus less edit is totally unacceptable. Again after your block for copyviolation you don't seem to have learned, still violating our copyright policies. Not to mention the numerous POV problems in your very poor write up with the use of mainly unreliable sources. Explain why your edits are acceptable or else ARBIPA penalties for tendentious editing can be very severe. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see this . There is no copyright voilation. And if you think there is some other problem you are free to fix it. Please don't remove text rather you should address talk page before removing anything big. And as your are saying these are unreliable sources then you haven't learned what relaible and unreliable source are. My sources are totally perfect, you are free to investigate them if you want. Anmolbhat (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * ,, you guys are pompously throwing around allegations without subtantiating anything. Please note that editors have gotten blocked recently for exactly this kind of behaviour. If you want to escape this fate, you need to substantiate. What POV? What copyright violations? Now that the content has been reverted, you need to do this pronto. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * U|Anmolbhat you need consensus to add content as controversial as this. This text suffers from too many neutrality issues. Just look at how many times you have used the word terrorist, in violation of WP:TERRORIST. There is also too much WP:SYNTHESIS which is prohibited. Sources such as Rediff and Indian Defence Review are not WP:RS for content which is as controversial as this. Dilpa kaur (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody needs any consensus to make any edits. So, please quit making this kind of argument. And, what is "controversial" here? You are continuing to throw the same kind of vague allegations as others have done. This is getting tiresome., can you please give guidance here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dilpa Kaur, the section was not "POV" or "copyright violation". Without even providing the rebuttal you can't dispute the validity of the content. You can replace the forbidden terms but you don't have to support the removal of whole section. Capitals00 (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One needs consensus to restore new controversial material which gets booted out, as you very well now Kautilya3, using the same reason you yourself use.


 * Now lets take a look at just the first sentence of Anmolbhat's writeup.


 * On January 04 1990, a Srinagar based newspaper named Aftab, released message issued by a terrorist organization Hizbul Mujahideen in newspaper, threatening all Hindus to leave Kashmir immediately
 * Now lets take a look at the quality of the sources cited
 * Rediff: When Kashmiri Pandits fled Islamic terror
 * Indian Defence Review: Kashmiri Pandits offered three choices by Radical Islamists
 * Looking at the titles should be obvious enough that these are not acceptable sources. The second article is outright unacceptable for Wikipedia use and the author is a (former) member of the Indian Army which makes him fail WP:INDEPENDENT. The first newspaper is part of the Indian media and Indian media is not reliable on Kashmir conflict related topics as the scholarly sources inform us.
 * Now lets take a look at the remaining two sources which happen to be decent sources.
 * Kashmir Ink: PROBE THE EXODUS
 * Greater Kashmir: On ‘Holocaust’ day, Kashmiris seek probe into Pandit exodus
 * But these two sources do not support the text.
 * Both the sources actually says this
 * On Jan, 04, 1990, a local Urdu newspaper, Aftab, published a press release issued by Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, asking all Pandits to leave the Valley immediately. Al Safa, another local daily repeated the warning. Surprisingly, the outfit did not own the statement and a clarification was accordingly issued. Even if the authenticity of the statement is accepted for the sake of arguments, why did the Pandits wait for a fortnight. It makes no sense that a community that has been threatened with dire consequences stays back for fifteen days and then suddenly decides to flee on January 19.
 * So this is actually WP:CHERRYPICKING and source misrepresentation by Anmolbhat. Source is saying something else and Anmolbhat is writing something else. Why not write the full information from the source? Obviously because it does not support the author's bias.
 * If there are so many issues with the first sentence alone, we cannot trust Anmolbhat to have written the rest of the section in adherence to Wikipedia policies. There are numerous issues with the whole section but since I am short on time I have pointed out the problems with just the first sentence as an example. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Indian Media
The O'Leary book article doesn't say that Indian media are "unreliable". It only says that they practice self-censorship (i.e., present selective news). This does not preclude using Indian media as sources. Take it to WP:RSN if you want.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Response: The O'Leary Book tells us

In India itself, Bose reports that the media are largely self-censoring with regards to the Kashmir conflict. The main media outlets have made no serious attempt to present a balanced account of the issue. The general coverage is very pro-government. The government is primarily concerned with regulating and limiting the flow of information to the Indian public on the conflict, and media stories critical of government's policies can provoke a serious reaction. One journalist from the Times of India filed a story highlighting abuse of the electoral system in Kashmir-reporting that large numbers of people were forced to vote at gunpoint. As the editors were absent, the story was included in the following day's issue. The journalist was recalled immediately from Kashmir by the paper and then forced to write a follow-up story denying the claims made in the previous piece. Thus, while there is no official censorship, self-censorship combined with occasional government pressure, results in very biased and controlled coverage of the conflict.

To use your words, in short the Indian media is essentially unreliable when it comes to Kashmir. An extensive search of Wiki records reveal that you yourselves have used this same argument when it comes to the Pakistani media on Balochistan. So now be a gentleman and stick to your standard.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, you can take it to WP:RSN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research
The sources clearly verify the fact that Aftab published a statement on 4 January 1990, which has been billed as a "press release of Hizbul Mujahideen". The fact that the organisation denied it later doesn't mean much. All kinds of agencies issue all kinds of denials. In fact, in January 1990, there were multiple groups operating as "Hizbul Mujahideen". We have no idea which group issued the denial.

All this brandishing doesn't do you any good. And, you should actually read the policy pages that you cite, such as WP:CHERRYPICKING. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Response: I am afraid this comment is opinion, not backed by any reliable sources. It counts as original research, especially these words ″he fact that the organisation denied it later doesn't mean much. All kinds of agencies issue all kinds of denials.″ JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a self-sourced denial. Hardly worth fighting over. Do you have a WP:THIRDPARTY source that verifies that Hizb was not responsible? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are bringing in too much opinion now. You need to stick to the available sources and balance them. There are four sources available for the sentence. Two of them doubt that Hizb was responsible and the other two which do deem them responsible suffer from too many issues such as WP:INDEPENDENT to be accepted as WP:RS. Even if they were, for arguments sake, WP:RS, you would need to WP:BALANCE the various sources which U|Anmolbhat has not done. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What you call "two sources" are documenting the opinion of the same individual, Sanjay Tikoo, who is only speculating about what might have happened. He is not denying that the newspaper published a "news release" from a "Hizbul Mujahideen" . There were multiple groups calling themselves "Hizbul Mujahideen" prior to June 1990. See for the chaotic history. So, Sanjay Tikoo's speculations are of no consequence. Anmolbhat has written factual information. You are only displaying bombast. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is still no decent WP:INDEPENDENT source shown so far which blames Hizbul Mujahideen for issuing such a message. And whether there were many groups calling themselves Hizb is a red herring as the content is not about which group it was but the issuing of a message by Hizbul. Now the reliable sources we have so far do not explicitly blame the Hizb, rather doubt its culpability. So Anmolbhat, who has already overlooked WP:TERRORIST has not managed to WP:BALANCE the descriptions in the sources he has cited. Unfortunatey, Anmolbhat's text after this first sentence is full of similar POV problems. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * my sources are perfect. Media is the one who covers story and they have already reported about these incidents enough. That means you are already able to find WP:RS. It is the case about genocide of Kashmiri Hindus where every source tells the same story (sources under WP:RS) And Sanjay Tickoo's claim that why Hindus stay for fortnight is just an opinion not the reporting. As for 'terrorist' word you can rephrase it. But you don't make any sense with the rest of your rejection. I also doubt the credibility of your account as well as Dilpa kaur. Anmolbhat (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a yet another reliable source that says the same thing. &mdash;  MBL  Talk 08:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not provided page number and quote from this ″reliable source″. You will have to present it here for us to work on a version that balances the sources. After we figure out how to properly write the first sentence we will work out the rest of the section. I doubt that even this so-called reliable source will support the 13,000 kb+ of POV content which you have restored. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * So far no response has been forthcoming nor is the provided source going to support the 13,000+ kB of POV content. I am restoring the last stable version according to WP:NOCON. It is not allowed to restore a contested version when a talkpage discussion is still going on about the new contested version's POV problems and misrepresentation on facts and sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * There is no misrepresentation of source and you don't have to do WP:STONEWALLING to maintain your WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your edit noted, "Be careful when removing such a large body of sourced text; especially with no or minimal explanation", what was that? Looks like a botched attempt of meat puppetry, because you are the one who was removing "large body of sourced text" with misleading summary. Anmolbhat (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from WP:PERSONALATTACK please, is merely following Wikipedia policy, which is to retain the last stable version while a discussion is continuing. See WP:NOCON. We are not going anywhere, we are still here on the talkpage to guide you to write an acceptable-to-encyclopedia section. Kindly draft a new version of your first sentence which is currently in discussion so we can examine it and put forward our guidance. Step by step we will manage to modify your entire section to make it acceptable for inclusion into Wikipedia. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

No he is just stonewalling now by making misleading claims and summary. I made no personal attacks but asked him to clarify the suspicious summary of his edit. It would be better for us if you also stop stonewalling and call anything a personal attack given your recent firovolous complaint against me was closed with no action. Anmolbhat (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to ask GJShah to present any sources from which he has derived this information. If it is, as I suspect, the opinion or yet-unsubstantiated claim of some political or religious leaders, it should be represented as such. If it is his own personal opinion, it is not deserving of mention here. As for Elle Kpyros' asking why this has been called an Exodus and not a genocide, the number of Hindu families killed, while significant, is far lower than the number of families which fled due to fear of persecution. It has also been argued that the main aim of those attacks and killings, along with newspaper ads taken out by militant groups, was to scare Hindus into leaving Kashmir, not to physically obliterate them. DhruvPanday (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * {{I'm not sure why you are posting in a two year old thread, but neither of those editors have posted again about the issue and indeed GJShah never made a second post about anything, so ignore them. Also please note that this page is only to discuss the article (as you do below), never the actual subject. Doug Weller  talk 09:26, 17 May 2020   (UTC) {{re|DhruvPanday}}  Doug Weller  talk 09:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Restart
Seems like almost no one is available to verify here if there is consensus or not. What is the problem with adding the timelines? I don't see a valid objection to that section in this revert. can you confirm if you are in support of the section or not? My Lord (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There are still too many POV problems in it. Just the first point alone had several issues of cherrypicking which haven't been improved. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * What POV? Content is sourced to reliable source. Do you have a different timeline than what has been presented by the source? My Lord (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The timeline is full of WP:TERRORIST labels. Second it has false statistics like "half a million fled". The total number of Pandits in the Valley were not even more than 160-170,000 (Evans). Then there is undue content about their current living conditions which is already covered in a separate section. There is also false propaganda that shops were burned. (how many?) The Evans article acknowledges that it was later verified that most Pandits had not received threats to leave the Valley.

his interviews with migrant Pandits found few who had actually been personally harmed or threatened to leave the Valley (and many who had been begged to stay by their Muslim neighbours). A research study conducted by postgraduate politics students at the University of Jammu in 2001 found that 2% of KPs surveyed had received threatening letters; however, over 80% had not received any form of direct threat }}

But still a few alleged (and if true, minor) incidents are being highlighted as if they were the norm.

And then there are the gory details like limbs being cut which is WP:UNDUE detail, unless you think such detail can be added on the much more extant torture of Kashmiri Muslims by our Indian Army. Bolded slogans (why are they even necessary?) And of course, the very first point which you have not fixed, that there only ever have been accusations that HM made such a threat, its not a fact set in stone. All these are mostly allegations from the Indian media (the bulk of your sources), which even scholars testify is biased on Kashmir. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Change term if you dont see them suitable. Rest of your explanation contradicts WP:SYNTH and your last conment is unrelated to this article. I had asked whether you have a different timeline or not. I didnt asked you to point out which points you dont believe are correct. My Lord (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that is a good response. It is your contributed content. When policy-based objections are raised, you need to revise it appropriately. Perhaps you can work on it in your sandbox and make the needed revisions. I am also unhappy that many of the citations are half-filled. WBG suggested in the section below to find scholarly sources since the content seems contentious. Finally, please note also that Wikipedia prefers paragraphs to lists. It is an encyclopedia. You can put lists in the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict, but here a narrative would be better.
 * , all said and done, the section on Turmoil, induction of fear... doesn't do its job. It still fails to convey what happened to convince almost the entire Pandit population to leave the Valley. So, more detail is certainly necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right about expanding sources and turning lists into content. I am currently looking forward to improve WBG's sandbox and yes narrative would be better and we can add the list in Timeline of the Kashmir conflict. My Lord (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with what has been written on User:Winged Blades of Godric/sandbox3 as a potential section for the article named as "Timeline". Let me know if there are any objections. My Lord (talk) 04:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have checked the sandbox. I think it needs some overhauls. Individual murder incidents have been clobbered up. That is WP:UNDUE. This sentence is too vague Shops, factories, temples and homes of Kashmiri Hindu were burned or destroyed. It does not indicate what the notability of these cases were, what was their scale. The last sentence can do without the word "many" because none of the sources cited support that word. They document only a few cases like Sarla and Girja. Also key to the inclusion of this section would be adding in the Jammu University study I cited here earlier. It shows that on an individual level, most Pandits were not threatened to leave. That is an important point. Tgere are a few things I am also thinking of but will save that feedback for a while until I get a response on these points. Dilpa kaur (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess that you have to blame the academics for the aspects of clobbering.Each individual murder incident has been covered by multiple academic sources/news et al and I've taken extreme care to omit case(s) which were only mentioned in few sources only.....
 * I agree about your comments as to It does not indicate what the notability of these cases were, what was their scale.Will search across academic sources, to evaluate it......
 * Umm...welter....Often, women were gang-raped...??.....Many is well-supported by the theme/tones of the writing.We ain't writing a legal-document over here.
 * A research study conducted by postgraduate politics students at the University of Jammu in 2001 isn't much/any reliable. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 08:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Why isn't it reliable? Its been vetted by Alexander Evans. He is the scholar I propose to cite. I accept that a primary source like a university study may not be directly admissible but his scholarly journal article is. Its much better than partisan sources like the journalist Rahul Pandita. Ms Kaul writes "many"? She writes "often" which has a subtly different meaning to many. But I have also seen secondary sources saying the opposite. If I go into primary sources I find that no more than a handful of Pandit women experienced such violence. But that would be WP:OR. So here is a secondary source. Dilpa kaur (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown if the source is being misrepresented or the information is incorrect. Let me ask you: Do you have anything important to say which would sound more than your personal opinion? Individual murder cases were the main reasons which escalated the fear among the Kashmiri Hindus and which in the end led to mass migration and the sentence you are calling vague is nothing more than what source is saying, and let us suppose that only 2% Hindus had received threats, still they received it and it is covered in multiple reliable sources, and is added here, your not accepting the fact will not change the reality, and you are just trying to find some irrelevant causes. My Lord (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Some comments
@Anmolbhat:--Some of the sources like iKashmir.net, Organiser aren't reliable.I have my doubts about IDR.On a sidenote, the first sentence was really cherry-picking.

@Josephus:--Rediff is quite-reliable.And we don't chery-pick reliable content from already-reliable sources by quality of it's headlines.

@Everybody:--Can we source the proposed timeline to at-least a few more scholarly sources? Winged Blades Godric 15:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm developing my own version at User:Winged Blades of Godric/sandbox3.Check the edit history along with the edit summaries and feel free to criticize my writing, each in his own subsection, without needless off-topic banters and aspersions. ~ Winged Blades Godric  06:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 can you please quote me the exact line from your sources where they say, "The Sheikh also started delivering communal speeches in mosques similar to his speeches in 1930's. Additionally, he referred to the Kashmiri Hindus as "mukhbir" or informers of the Indian government." And don't try to bully me. Thank you. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you please quote me the exact line from your sources where they say, "The Sheikh also started delivering communal speeches in mosques similar to his speeches in 1930's. Additionally, he referred to the Kashmiri Hindus as "mukhbir" or informers of the Indian government." The second link is broken. It returns with No web page was found for the web address: https://docer.pl/doc/nvxs0ns And don't try to bully me. Thank you. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced content under Turmoil, Induction of fear and Exodus
You have made an unexplained deletion of verifiable content which I have had to revert. Following your edit it has been claimed by Kautilya3 that the content removed is WP:UNDUE, though how it is so has of course not been explained. The WP:ONUS now rests on you Kautilya3 to explain why the longstanding content is all of a sudden WP:UNDUE. Here is your chance, both of you, to explain yourselves and gain WP:CONSENSUS which is a requirement for deleting verifiable content. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about the "exodus" of Kashmiri Hindus (Pandits). There is no mention of any "genocide" or "denying humanity". What Mridu Rai says is entirely irrelevant. You better read WP:ONUS yourself! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kautilya. Mridu is getting undue weight. Anmolbhat (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The section name is Turmoil and Induction of fear. Which is why its relevant. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They do not equate to "genocide" and "denial of humanity". If the content implies any such things, please explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Induction of fear certainly implies ″denial of humanity″. Since the Hindu propagandists display the exodus as some sort of genocide the refutation of the genocide claim also belongs under exodus. Claims of genocide also fall under turmoil. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk about WP:OR now. The article sufficiently explains why the induction of fear was achieved. There is no need to mention anything that didn't occur. Neither is it our job to counter anybody's propaganda. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Several WP:RS talk about Pandit propaganda. So yes the Hindu propaganda ought to be countered within the confines of the WP:RS which discuss it. I will be creating a section on it soon. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In place of reducing the problem, you just maximized it. Read above discussion about Mridu Tao. You are doing WP:SYNTH and your last sentence about media investigation is not supported by source. Capitals00 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Capitals00, I do wonder why you have showed up now when you have no contribution from before to this little discussion, only to claim falsely that there has been a 'consensus' to remove Mridu Rai. No such thing has happened. If you do not agree to the new alternative version we will have to restore the true WP:STATUSQUO as it is policy to keep the last stable version before dispute.


 * You have provided no evidence of this consensus or your claim of WP:SYNTHESIS. If you fail to provide evidence soon I will drag you off to WP:AE where I will have the admins deal with you.


 * Your claim that my last sentence, about the media investigation, is not supported by the source is false. Maybe the passage from the source itself will satisfy you...In response to persistent allegations by Indian media and right-wing Hindu politicians about desceration and destruction of scores of Hindu temples and shrines in the Kashmir Valley, a leading Indian magazine undertook an investigation in February 1993. Its journalists were armed with a list of twenty-three such sites supplied by the Delhi office of the BJP-whose top leader L.K. Advani (India's interior minister post-1998 and deputy prime minister since 2002) said after Hindu extremists demolished the disputed Babri mosque in the north Indian town of Ayodha in December 1992: ″Nobody raised a voice when over forty temples were desecrated in Kashmir. Why these double standards?″ The investigators, who inspected and photographed each site, found that twenty-one of the twenty-three shrines were completely intact (the other two had sustained minor damage in unrest after the razing of Babri mosque). They reported that ″even in villages in which only one or two Pandit families are left″ since the exodus of 1990, ″the temples are safe....even in villages full of [armed] militants″. ...I am inviting to check whether this passage supports my last sentence or not...″Indian media also alleged the desecration of 23 Hindu shrines in Kashmir, a claim found false in an investigation by a notable Indian magazine in February 1993.″ JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I find no SYNTHESIS here, but you need to mention the two damaged temples in the interest of full disclosure. I also don't think "Indian media alleged" is acceptable. It is WP:WEASEL and improper aggregation. If you can find out which media alleged, you can mention those. Otherwise, you can safely mention the BJP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is needless to mention the two damaged temples. Those temples sustained injury in the aftermath of the Demolition of the Babri Mosque, which would also need to be mentioned because WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I believe the sentence will end up to become too lengthy. But this is not a strongly contested matter so I am open to compromising on this but I will have to mention the context in which the two temples were damaged. ″Indian media alleged″ is acceptable because the Bose source says clearly...″In response to persistent allegations by Indian media″. We have to WP:STICKTOSOURCEs. There is no mention of BJP in the Bose passage, just ″right-wing Hindu politicians″, so won't mention BJP because of the same policy. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't stick-to-source in order to violate Wikipedia policies. You have got it backwards. There are as many kinds of media as there are people in the country. You have to say which media.
 * The BJP supplied a list of 23 such sites. So what is the problem? Are you covering for BJP now? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

~ Winged Blades Godric 07:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--On a first glance, as the article lies currently, Mridu Rai's mention is not any beneficial to the reader.To a person with no ideas about the Kashmir conflict, Mridu Rai's statement is entirely out-of-place because it contradicts a claim which hasn't been ever claimed/slightly discussed in the article .I will thus request to temporally revert it.Shortly chiming in upon the expansion by Joseph. ~ Winged Blades Godric  06:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--How does this look like-->>
 * Your version does not have the KPSS rejection of the genocide claim and their dismissal of the expatriate propaganda involving casualty numbers. My version has that. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...In the meanwhile, can you gather a few more sources, as desired? ~ Winged Blades Godric 09:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And, before we mention Tikoo/KPSS, we need some sourced-content about assertions of thousands of deaths.Without that, for reasons elaborated above, the rebuttal of a never-touched-upon claim is meaningless to a reader.Throughout the article, no such astronomical claims have been mentioned and only the official report and KPSS's own figures are found. ~ Winged Blades Godric 09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There is the Alexander Evans source which contains this passage...My own interviews with a number of KPs in Jammu, many of whom hold Pakistan responsible, suggest suspicions of ethnic cleansing or even genocide are wide of the mark. The two conspiracy theories already described are not evidence based. As Sumantra Bose observes, those Rashtriya Swamy Sevak publications’ claims that large numbers of Hindu shrines were destroyed and Pandits murdered are largely false, to the extent that many of the shrines remain untouched and many of the casualties remain unsubstantiated. Equally, it is important to note that some incidents did take place. Leading KPs were targeted—some attacked, some murdered—but almost always as political targets.

And because you have asked for a source which mentions higher casualty numbers........An Indo-American Kashmir Forum pamphlet says that over 1100 KPs have been killed in Kashmir since militancy began. Teng and Gadoo claim that more than 700 Hindus were assassinated between Autumn 1989 and Summer 1990, a figure flatly contradicted by official Indian figures that indicate 228 Hindu civilians were killed between 1988 and 1991. An official who dealt directly with compensation claims at the time states the figure was nearer 490, although this includes state officials in the count. There is no reason for the Indian government to underplay these numbers, especially given that it was directly in charge (through governor’s rule and the security forces) between January 1990 and September 1996. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC) It looks okay, but out of curiosity, is it really necessary to use the qualification of ″some″ in the second and third sentences? It would be different if you can find a scholar who says the opposite to Bose, Rai and Evans. It also seems meek to call the scholar Bose an ″author″ in the third sentence. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--In reverence to WP:DUE, we ought to mention those scholars who indeed think that there was a genocide, if there are any! ~ Winged Blades Godric 07:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--See User:Winged Blades of Godric/sandbox2. ~ Winged Blades Godric 06:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , what's your take on the writing, in light of JJ's previous comments? ~ Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Godric, I think your write-up was quite on the mark. Thanks for your efforts. I agree that Bose et al should be described as "scholars" rather than "authors". I also agree that "some" can be omitted unless there are other scholars that disagreed with the official figures. I have looked through the articles that I had saved in my files, and didn't find any that even mention the issue regarding the number killed. This is not really controversial and I think we are making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is nothing unusual about victimised groups exaggerating their predicaments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * -_So, in the event of no further objections being raised within a day, either of you may feel free to incorporate the version currently at my sandbox. ~ Winged Blades Godric 16:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposed content needs to go under Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, where some statistics have been already provided in 3rd paragraph. Capitals00 (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer a new section.Pinging and  as to their opinions on the placement and/or their preferred section-title. ~ Winged Blades Godric  16:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it can go where the old Mridu Rai paragraph used to be. I don't see the need for a new section. As I said earlier, it is not uncommon for victimized groups to exaggerate their predicaments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox
I believe that this article deserves an infobox. What do you say? I have prepared an infobox in my userspace, see: User:My Lord/Exodus Infobox. I will consider adding this if no one raises any objections. My Lord (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

IP edits: The Administrator, Farrukh Faheem
Recently an unregistered editor has been making large batches of edits, ,. While the edits show a high degree of sophistication, I still find them to be POV edits, cherry-picking content from sources, and not integrating disparate information.

For example, in the second batch of edits, the editor cites one source ("Zutsi", i.e., Shahla Hussain) to say that the Indira-Sheikh accord legitimised the previous measures of integration, and then in the next sentence, cites another source ("Haley", i.e., Farrukh Faheem) to claim that it "reduced" the autonomy. Which of these is correct? There is no effort on the part of this editor to determine that. There has in fact been no change in the status of Jammu and Kashmir since 1977. And, Shahla Hussain is a historian, who did her PhD with Ayesha Jalal. That should have been enough to trump the misinformation from Farrukh Faheem. Faheem is in fact a sociologist in TISS, who says that he did a field study in Kashmir to document the narratives of Kashmiris. Narratives are valuable. But they are not history.

In the first batch of edits, a journal called The Administrator was used, apparently based on Google snippet views, and no information was provided about the author or title of the work. The edits attempted to draw a straight line from the 1983 election, which was supposedly religiously polarised, to the 1989 insurgency. Something as elaborate as this would need multiple reliable sources of high quality. Steve Widmalm has written, on the other hand,

So this is not a given. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is totally biased and most of the references are from those who are hardcore anti-muslim.
This article was written with plain sighted anti-muslim and anti-Kashmiri sentiments. Mostly because of the political propaganda against Muslims of Kashmir. We know Pandits had to suffer, but exaggerating(verified less than 600 dead) and humiliating Kashmiri muslims with no comments on human rights violations (more than 40,000 killed and thousands of rapes of Muslims by Indian forces) is disgusting and shows true colors of the idea behind this article. Pandits who fled Kashmir were given a safety call by Jagmohan to leave so that they wont have to witness daily sufferings on Kashmiris. Even after so much time and being given all the amnesty by Indian government, Pandits refuse to settle back down in Kashmir, so that they can have a reason to cry upon and give normal Indian people a diversion when people in Kashmir are being slaughtered and disabled(its a fact even if your hate filled mind denies it). Agree or not but present day Pandits are all doing good and are well off due to many government reservations, than most of the Kashmiris living under opression in Valley. They hold on to this exodus so that they can be used as a political tools by right wing politicians as anti-muslim sentiments are prime tools in present day India for winning elections, development and employement no where to be an agenda to win. For hate mongers who will still criticise me, I am totally against Pakistan and its policies in Kashmir, I only presented the facts. Saqibkhan2504 (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * this comment is too generic to be helpful. Which sources specifically are "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Kashmiri"? What evidence do you have for this claim? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , yeah, the above comment has immense potential for leading to a constructive discourse. So is the one some-threads above, stating:-- ....by the call of Jagmohan to save to them for what was coming to muslims in future: massacres and mass rapes. Wish you luck. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 18:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * even by your own account - 600 death .. is not significant number for you? Shame! And all terrorist and infiltrators suddenly become mere 'Muslim' for you to inflate the victimhood number to some baseless 40k? Your 'comment' is a cooked up narration of victim-hood to justify worst pogoram in the history of mankind. There are video documentary from those times (not hd quality but good and clear enough), which are far more reliable than rehashed researches to say most of the Pandits disappeared/migrated overnight of their own free will for better prospects and the world pampered them and vilified the innocent (muslims) terrorists who were 'left behind' in the valley. --Jaydayal (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

...hate-mongers will still criticise me. Saqibkhan2504 (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Jaydalal, i provided the reference to your mere 40k killings. Those are provided by indian media itself that means only God knows how many more were killed as we know how accurate and unbiased indian media is. In addition to this, your blind hatred to muslims is so transparent that your use of decorative enlish words is making it so obvious. Also, I never said 600 is less, its your own very healthy mentality responsible for it. Please nevermind in future to waste your time in replying to me. It will be so waste of your productive time and great mental condition. Saqibkhan2504 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The hatnote at the top of this page says: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. So please restrict your discussion accordingly., you haven't yet answered my question. You need to do so if this discussion is to go anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For reference please refer to the other articles written by Colonel Tej K Tikkoo, he has always been blind to the sufferings of normal Kashmiri people. He raises voices when only a defence personel is killed and wails over what will happen to his family. What about the fourty thousand families that were deprived of their members? Well if you have a little bit more of an understanding than most, you would've understood his intentions. And also the Indian media references, they always neglect the plea of normal Kashmiri people. I may have written the title in a bit hurry, it should've said "most of the references are used to potray this whole episode as a reason to throw out anti muslim sentiments by the authors. Saqibkhan2504 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Khan, choose your source, please tell the number of Muslims and Kashmiri Pandits living in Kashmir in 1982 and then in 2002. We should view them as Indians, the more you view them as Muslim first the greater the hallucination. You speak of Muslims of being troubled by Indian Army emphatically in a way that Muslims are not Indians, your own choice of words deprive them of a greater belonging, all Kashmiris are Indians first and we must empathize with all suffering rather than only of Muslims and belittle the atrocity done on Indian Pandits by Indian Muslims in Kashmir. I am merely calling a spade a spade. Get the 1982 and 2002 data, it will be an eye opener for your 40k and 600 hallucination. --Jaydayal (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Jaydalal please stop deleting contents from my page that i have created. If you cant win by logic stop using evil tricks, that shows how weak you are personally. Stop crying please and your foolish edits they dont bother me. Stop wasting your time here, u cant win by logic here. As by your profile history, go on and glorify the RSSarticle, why are you wasting time here. Saqibkhan2504 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You can improve article over time, your article is there, copyvio is taken seriously, please do not revert in hurry. And you should give up personal attacks, it helps none. --Jaydayal (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hi. Just regarding your words above - "with no comments on human rights violations (more than 40,000 killed and thousands of rapes of Muslims by Indian forces)" and other lines you have written I would like to draw your attention to other pages on Wikipedia for all this such as -
 * Human rights abuses in Kashmir,
 * Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir,
 * Rape during the Kashmir conflict,
 * List of massacres in Jammu and Kashmir,
 * Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir,
 * New pages also need to be created such as Human rights abuses in Gilgit-Baltistan which currently doesn't have its own page

All of these pages need to be worked upon. Why not devote some time to them too. There are very few good contributors for articles related to Jammu and Kashmir and so many of them need to be improved, even articles not related to the conflict and even general articles such as Char Chinar. Now I know this talk page is not for general discussions but I decided to add it here and not on your talk page. I think you should also take this to your own talk page (User talk:Saqibkhan2504) if you need any ideas or any more discussion relating to all this and how to contribute to Wikipedia positively and productively. Cheers. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Human rights violations in Balochistan should also be added, if it doesnt exist already. I am not declining the separate mention these HR violations in wikipedia, I just wanted to say why not include them in this article as it is as a whole article giving only one -sided narrative on the situation in Kashmir. Its highly disappointing that people find counter arguments instead of their logic to debate here. Saqibkhan2504 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on your talk page for further discussion. Since it seems you are new to Wikipedia, I think your doubts need more clarifying, outside the scope of this talk page. There are various ways your issues related to this page can be addressed, but only if you are willing to give it more time, especially considering the seriousness of the article you have chosen to critique. I would request you to answer the questions related to this discussion which I have left on your talk page for a more open discussion about how this can be worked upon, say in a sandbox (User:Saqibkhan2504/sandbox) with proper referencing. I will help out too and if you are serious about this, I am sure you will find the time. Thank you.
 * (I am going to stop commenting here now on this particular section) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2019
"Since the mid-1970s, communalist rhetoric was being exploited in the state for votebank politics. This fit together with the plan of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which was trying to Islamise Kashmir and replace its prevalent Sufi culture with Wahhabism in order to create an atmosphere of religious unity with Pakistan. "

The part about ISI's role has been removed as hate speech earlier. Please add it. 49.14.97.254 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what change(s) you want to make.  Please make a precise request.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Kashmir Temple, Houses and institutions of Kashmiri Pandits burnt , looted and abandoned.jpg

Wrong Information about Communal speeches and change of names.
Islamization of Kashmir began during 1980's when Abdullah Government changed the names of about 2500 villages from their native names to new Islamic names. The Sheikh also started delivering communal speeches in mosques similar to his speeches in 1930's. Additionally, he referred to the Kashmiri Hindus as "mukhbir" or informers of the Indian government. Where exactly does the citations say anything like this? The citations this particular piece of information provides no backing for it. The citations don't have such information as written in the Wikipedia page. The links for the citations are : http://www.theshillongtimes.com/2016/09/06/kashmir-violence-possible-solution/ https://docer.pl/doc/nvxs0ns These articles don't even mention anything about any change in name or any communal speeches. Please visit these articles. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Quote from the first source:
 * Quote from the second source:
 * I suggest that you now withdraw from this page. Any further disruption from you here will be reported. You already know about the ARBIPA sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing wrong with engaging on the talk page, so long as they do not edit disruptively. The quotes you provided should be sufficient to resolve this issue. — MarkH21talk 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the third or fourth time he has raised red herrings. This cannot be allowed to go on forever. We all have other things to do than to attend to his pointless disputes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing wrong with engaging on the talk page, so long as they do not edit disruptively. The quotes you provided should be sufficient to resolve this issue. — MarkH21talk 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the third or fourth time he has raised red herrings. This cannot be allowed to go on forever. We all have other things to do than to attend to his pointless disputes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2020
It should add genocide to the goals, as that was one of their motives. In fact, not only was this an exodus, the whole article should be renamed to GENOCIDE of Kashmiri Hindus, it was the intentional action to destroy a people, in this case were Kashmiri Hindus. An exodus is a mass departure of people, this happened, but thousands were killed as well. KR72 (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is explained further in Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus, the section says that it's not the prevailing scholarly view. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thjarkur So just because some scholars deny the actual meaning of the term it is not noted as genocide? I don't understand. This is classified as a genocide, A mass killing of people. If you want to keep hiding the truth on this page, then maybe a new page should be made about the Persecution of Kashmiri Hindus like you have on other religions and cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KR72 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia is a summary of what the scholars say. See WP:V and WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So if scholars say "the moon landing was fake", which it isn't but they said it was, you would have an article on that on Wikipedia? Please don't take offence from this, I'm asking a genuine question in a civil manner. But the fact is that this is a genocide, I don't understand why that is being ignored based on a persons opinion. KR72 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That is not a genuine question. In any case, this is not the place to debate Wikipedia policies. Please go to WP:Village pump if you wish to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Jammu-Kashmir-Ladakh.svg

Misleading Article
The title it self misleading.. it was not only exodus. Also not the terrorists only did this... 99% of native Muslims were complicit. It was genocide of Hindu population by native Muslims and Muslim terrorists resulted in exodus. In addition, the article is editable so can not be corrected. GJShah (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note that the above editor has only ever edited once, ie the edit above. They should be ignored. Doug Weller  talk 09:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is listed on the Wikipedia ethnic cleansing page as one of the largest examples in history, yet is here labeled an "exodus" — while all the others on the page are "holocaust", "genocide", "ethnic cleansing", and "persecution". "Exodus" means simply the departure, often rapid, of a large number of people. At the very least, the murder and driving out of Hindus from Kashmir rates "persecution", no? Elle Kpyros (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit for including recent change of abolishment of Article 370
There is mention of Article 370 in the Recent Developments section, which has now been superseded by a constitutional order on August 5, 2019. It would be worthwhile to add this information to this section as it is clearly a significant 'recent development' in the matter. It might also logically follow to include that there are plans to relocate Hindus (not necessarily just Kashmiri Pandits) to the region into military-protected communities, or that the state has been under severe military monitoring and restrictions since then. DhruvPanday (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Only content that directly relates to the Exodus of Kashmir Pandits (or their return) can go here. Other political developments are covered in their own articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia does not predict the future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

1987 elections
Moving from my talk page to here.

Sorry, which two sources do you mean? The sentence was cited to this source which just asserts its occurrence, while I see that the articles that I just added from the BBC and The Economist use the wording widely regarded and widely believed. So one could perhaps try to use that latter sources' wording, which would probably require expanding / splitting the sentence in two. — MarkH21talk 14:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
I'd like to propose a change to this line:

Of the approximately 300,000 to 600,000 Hindus living in the Kashmir Valley in 1990 only 2,000–3,000 remain there in 2016.

My change: Hindu population in 1981 in the respective districts in the Kashmir Valley (according to the census published by the Indian Government):

Anantnag approximately 24678 (3.76% of 656351) Budgam approximately 9658 (2.63% of 367262) Baramulla approximately 13536 (2.02% of 670142) Kupwara approximately 6632 (2.03% of 326743) Pulwama approximately 6222 (1.54% of 404078) Srinagar approximately 59357 (8.38% of 708328)

Bringing the approximate total of the Kashmiri Hindu population in the Kashmir Valley in 1981 to 120,088. Making the number of 300,000 - 600,000 of Kashmiri Hindus living in the Kashmir Valley in 1990 highly unlikely.

Reference: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/demographic-characteristics-of-the-jammu-and-kashmir/41538 table 7.9 and 7.10 Imcoolyourenot (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The article you link is not a "reliable source". It appears to be self-published, user-generated content on a site with no editorial oversight by an author whose identity cannot be confirmed ("ZK Ali" is not very helpful). What should be cited instead is:

Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The census directly
 * Analysis of this in a reputable source, not some random website

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020
Please include the history of Kashmiri Sikhs. They were left behind and still face persecution from militants. 2601:601:1881:1E50:C78:F06E:9356:C87F (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021
An user has removed the content with a vague edit summary. The source is still available and has been archived for verification. Please restore it. 77.242.16.178 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Diary
The attack and threats section gives feel of an investigation diary. Kautilya3 or some other editor can edit it into something better? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Bollywood movie 'The Kashmir Files' on Kashmir Genocide
In March 2022, Bollywood Hindi movie titled 'The Kashmir Files' was released which is based upon the true incidents of the Kashmiri Hindu Genocide and Exodus. 106.196.35.203 (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022
I suggest removing the part "not religious" from the line "The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), an organization whose objectives at the time were political, not religious, led the secessionist uprising but did not abjure violence". All evidences point out to targetted killing of people from the Hindu community during the militancy, there were high ranking Muslims as well who were not killed. Why would a non-religious political militancy target and selective kill people from a single community? This in itself proves that the motivations were religious. 103.77.46.118 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022
Instead of Exodus, it should be Genocide. After going through certain interviews of pandits, the accused terrorist, the book written by the victim of this genocide, it is high time to realise that instead of mellowing down one of cruelest act done in the name of so called peaceful religion, by calling it Exodus, we should accept that it was very well planned,funded Genocide.

It is very shameful of us to not recognise and empathize with pain which still lies in refugee camps of people in their own country. 2409:4042:2E9A:29A4:A2DE:FFEB:66EB:D74D (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2022
43.248.74.140 (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. >>> Extorc . talk ; 05:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Exodus to Genocide

After the we all know about the real fact of Kashmir should we now call it an exodus or a genocide on innocent people.
What you all think about this topic ?? Honestly we should not call it an exodus it's a clear genocide against the spirit of Kashmir civilization, on Hindus. Sahoochinmayakumar701 (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022 (3)
2405:204:300C:6074:60B1:D7:3A86:81F2 (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Its not exodus.. it was genocide.. and thousands of hindus were killed and millions were forced to leave kashmir.. which was hindu state, occupied by muslims.. please correct this as soon as possible🙏🙏
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Cannolis (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022
Not Exodus, this was the Genocide..must be replaced, thanks Vaibhav13987 (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Facts should reflect Vaibhav13987 (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2022
“Change Exodus to Genocide” because exodus is mass departure and so it misrepresents the true and endeavours to not only suppress the truth but weave a pattern of narrative. Genocide is the only word that could only be used for this. Scienceandsociety (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2022 (2)
Exodus is wrong it was genocide 163.53.179.156 (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See above casualdejekyll  15:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Title is not apt at all
The Title should be Genocide of Kashmiri Pandits. 2405:204:8480:F6CB:446:E679:AAED:D8CB (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please find Sources/ References that mention Genocide, and then it may be added along with Exodus, (also considered Genocide) {Supported by Sources}

Title Exodus is apt as per most sources so far, but Genocide is increasingly being used in news & popular culture, and may be included in the lead but we need several sources for Genocide and discussion page has been started Please go to Redirects for discussion Jhy.rjwk (talk) 23:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022 (2)
Title should be Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus 2402:E280:3D22:46B:296E:DEAE:30F6:B411 (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Cannolis (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022
Change title to - Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus 112.213.132.247 (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. signed,  511KeV    (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Exodus of Kashmiri Pandits
This topic should be changed to Genocide of Kashmiri pandits 110.226.84.57 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Forced Migration
An article by Human Rights Watch about the UN report on Kashmir from 2019 read: "The report also decried the lack of justice for past abuses such as killing and forced displacement of Hindu Kashmiri Pandits, enforced or involuntary disappearances, and alleged sexual violence by Indian security forces personnel."

There are other sources too which refer to the "exodus" of Kashmiri Hindus as being an internal displacement. or imply that it was a forced migration.

Since "exodus" does not necessarily mean forced migration or expulsion, the fact that the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus was forced should be reflected in the opening sentence; and it should be changed from "emigration of Hindus" to "forced migration / forced displacement of Hindus".

– Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objections about your choice of words but this article is not restricted to the event of '90. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * However much of this article seems to be about the background and aftermath of the events of the 90s. Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, far and away the major violence in Kashmir for nearly two centuries has been committed against the Muslims there, violence in which the Pandits themselves have been complicit, i.e. not necessarily actively, but in passive compliance. There are dozens of scholarly sources that attest.Wikipedia has imperatives of due weight. There is no comparison.
 * Second, there is no reason that the exodus should have a starting date of 1990. Pandits have been emigrating out for centuries.  How else did the Nehrus (formerly Kauls) happen to have a house along a canal (Persian nahar) on the outskirts of Delhi in the reign of Shah Jahan? The Pandits, many of whom were landowners, left in fairly large numbers between 1947 and 1951 in the face of impending land reforms.  Common estimates are 20%
 * Third, it is not clear that all emigration was forced, i.e. if there wasn't a demonstration effect or if the reasons were of an economic inconvenience and its resolution by emigration than fear of bodily harm.
 * Fourth, you are touting the UN Human Rights report 180 sections of which 170 sections are about violence against the Muslims, and one about the departure of the Pandits. If I remember correctly, the mention of the Pandits (in the report published in 2019) is not about current events but about legal issues still unresolved from the 1990s. It doesn't mention numbers. It is quite possible that some were forced to flee, but whether the group was forced is not clear (as I've already stated).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the uprising in Kashmir in the 1990s began as one against the governments imposed on the state by the Federal government in India; its aim at the outset was not to drive the Hindus out as (if I remember correctly) the leaders of the uprising belong to secular groups.  Describing the feeling of the Pandits as "forced migration," not only distorts the reasons for the flight but also the aims of the anti-India (federal government) insurgency. I'm sure there are references for that.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * for nearly two centuries has been committed against the Muslims there, violence in which the Pandits themselves have been complicit
 * How is that relevant?
 * Pandits, many of whom were landowners, left in fairly large numbers between 1947 and 1951 in the face of impending land reforms. Common estimates are 20%
 * Why is this mentioned only in the references?
 * it is not clear that all emigration was forced
 * It would seem that all emigration since the 90s was forced. Do you have sources which claim otherwise?
 * you are touting the UN Human Rights report 180 sections of which 170 sections are about violence against the Muslims, and one about the departure of the Pandits.
 * Because there has never been a report by the UN solely focusing on Kashmiri Hindus, and this Wikipedia article is about Kashmiri Hindus?
 * its aim was not to drive the Hindus out as (if I remember correctly) the leaders of the uprising belong to secular groups.
 * So Hindus being driven out was a side-effect? Even if it was, I haven't come across any source that doesn't say that they were forced to migrate.
 * — Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See for example:
 * "The imposition of the leaders chosen by the centre, with the manipulation of the local elections contests, and the denial of what Kashmiris felt was a promised 'autonomy', boiled over at last into the militancy of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front, a secular movement devoted to political, not religious, objectives. The Hindu Pandits, a small but influential elite community who had secured a favourable position, first under the maharajas and then under successive Congress regimes, and proponents of a distinctive Kashmiri culture that linked them to India, felt under siege as the uprising gathered force.  Of a population of some 140,000, perhaps some 100,000 Pandits fled the state after 1990; their cause was quickly taken up by the Hindu right.  The Kashmiri Muslims, although only uncertainly committed to secession from India, were nevertheless subjected to fierce repression.  By decade's end the Indian military presence in the state has escalated to approximately one armed soldier or policeman for every five Kashmiris, and some 30,000 people had died in the conflict." from
 * Would you like us to change the name of the page to "The killing of 30,000 Muslim Kashmiris in mistaken reprisal for the emigration of 100,000 Kashmiri Pandits because the latter felt under siege from a secular uprising?" Because that is what the source says.
 * Please also read WP:TERTIARY which states, "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight." Metcalf and Metcalf is one of the most widely read undergraduate textbooks on modern Indian history. It is a lot more reliable and DUE than one section of a 180-section UN report (which in any case is a primary source).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * emigration of 100,000 Kashmiri Pandits because the latter felt under siege from a secular uprising?
 * And why does it mean that the "secular uprising" didn't force the Kashmiri Pandits to migrate?
 * Are you saying that it's a good thing that they migrated because the "Hindu oppression of Muslims" has more weight or something? XD
 * Also, I added the UN report because you can't get more politically neutral than the United Nations.
 * — Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, please read about undue weight. Please also note that beyond a certain point, on-the-fly persistence in promoting a WP:POV, which flies moreover in the face of WP rules and conventions constitutes WP:DISRUPTION.  This page is the subject of ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. This is as far as I go in patiently explaining things to you.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Undue Weight —
 * "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * It is about giving due weight to each viewpoint, not weighing which community has been oppressed more. And even your source says that Kashmiri Hindus felt under siege as the "secular" uprising gathered force, and hence were forced to migrate. I am not promoting a WP:POV, while you on the other hand couldn't even answer my questions on why certain points have been excluded.
 * you don't need to threaten me with sanctions, because I know it's pointless to waste time with people who are clearly biased. Have a good day! ^_^
 * — Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of content
I am going ahead and removing this entire uncited paragraph- In order to undermine his political rival Farooq Abdullah who at that time was the Chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, the Minister of Home Affairs Mufti Mohammad Sayeed convinced Prime Minister V. P. Singh to appoint Jagmohan as the governor of the state. Abdullah resented Jagmohan who had been appointed as the governor earlier in April 1984 as well and had recommended Abdullah's dismissal to Rajiv Gandhi in July 1984. Abdullah had earlier declared that he would resign if Jagmohan was made the Governor. However, the Central government went ahead and appointed him as Governor on 19 January 1990. In response, Abdullah resigned on the same day and Jagmohan suggested the dissolution of the State Assembly. DTM (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Query
Is a partial or complete list available anywhere? — Sheikh Abdullah's government changed the names of about 2,500 villages from their native names to new Islamic ones DTM (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of removing the line - it is sourced to the absolutely unreliable K. N. Pandita. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One Tara Kartha copied the "2,500" figure from us (in all likelihood) into her Routledge chapter. In support, she cited a book that was published in 1971 as a description of 1980s' Kashmir. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * JPRS Report: Near East & South Asia, Issue 93029, Foreign Broadcast Service, p. 29 has someone holding this to be BJP propaganda. They cite numerous name changes to the opposite effect - Babarpur to Joharpur etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Khalid Bashir Ahmed (p. 253) notes this charge to be a widely circulated story without any substantiation. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

2,500 is certainly WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and we would need multiple high-quality sources for it.

There is only one name that I know about: Anantnag to Islamabad. (Both the names were in use earlier.) Bakshi Ghulam Ahmed is said to have changed it back to Anantnag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anantnag was not Islamabad but a small region in it. Both names were hardly in equal use - almost all British correspondence and Dogra revenue records mention Islamabad. It was indeed Bakshi G's idea to rename it to Anantnag. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aurel Stein says the town was called by both the names.
 * Secondly, I wonder if the name fiddling was to the district name rather than the town's name. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is established that names may change due to various reasons. However here, with specific mention to this article, we have to understand what will make the name changing notable enough to mention... and there should be references.
 * Digressing, there is a joke by Vivek Muralidharan- change Ma Tujhe Salaam to Ma Tujhe Pranaam. DTM (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Of interest
This book is of interest— The book is also based on a study conducted by the Indian Council of Social Science Research titled "Study of Place Names in Kashmir". The book uses sources including Rajatarangini. Other books go far back taking references to topics such as the Burzahom archaeological site. DTM (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Names of people... and other stuff
While this started out as a list of 2,500 villages... name evolution also applies to people...and other stuff. The Book of Indian Names (Rupa, 1994) has some interesting related tidbits- Reminds me of identity theft....
 * A mere shifting of the family name to the first place in the name also makes a significant difference. Thus Ali Mohammad Sheikh may become Sheikh Ali Mohammad and likewise Mohammad Maqbool Mir may change to Mir Mohammad Maq- bool. Sheikh at the third place can even mean a sweeper and Sheikh at the first place is a title of scholars...In a few cases people try to invent a link between their family names and some alien families of some consequence. (pg 12)
 * Kaul, Bhat and Pandit are essentially Hindu family names retained by Muslims even after their conversion to Islam. (pg 8)

Khalid Bashir Bhat writes in Countercurrents.org— Since we are talking of name changing..."Shere-e-Kashmir Cricket Stadium will also get a new name: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Stadium" (The Wire, 2019). DTM (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Another old and iconic place subjected to name change – several times – is the famous hill in Srinagar crowned with an ancient stone temple. What we are told is that the hill’s name was ‘Islamized’ from Shankaracharya to Takht-i-Sulaiman or Koh-i-Sulaiman. You often come across this premise in the writings, and posts on social media, of people subscribing to a particular view on Kashmir’s past. Those who hold and propagate this view do so without any regard for history.

Image query
While I have placed this image File:News, Report,.jpg of a news clipping also present in Sarwanand Koul Premi's article, I am not sure which newspaper this is. DTM (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Anmolsharma.141 was the uploader. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ping; I will remove the image from this particular article until a newspaper is identified. DTM (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)