Talk:Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir

Merge
This article (if it even manages to exist) should be merged into a small section in Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir since HRA in Azad Kashmir are not as much notable as HRA in Jammu and Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Notable enough for HRW to write an entire report on them, which I am currently reading, cheerio. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like a couple of sources will be all you will be able to find. The depth of coverage of this topic is nowhere near to HRA in Jammu and Kashmir. Comparing the level of academic sources available, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir will become a good long article while this will jut be left as a small one in comparison with hardly anything. Mar4d (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt this article will remain small. I also know the other article I started will be a decent one as I am rewriting it. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of pov stuff. It is linking missing person issue in Pakistan to Azad Kashmir. Not sure how many can actually be linked. We need to put POV tags and other tags to make sure that readers know that this article is not reliable enough and require some more work. Spasage (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Forced disappearances
Just two disappearances in all of 2011 is hardly mass human rights abuses, this should be removed from the lead since it is not notable. Two disappearances is really peanuts compared to Jammu and Kashmir. I am looking at other sources too. Mar4d (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The population is less than 40 lakh, so 2 is a notable figure.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, 2 appearances make it enough to get in a news paper, not an encyclopedia.. that's stuff for Wikinews (to be reasonable). -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the first source, the figure is far higher than two. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of words being used in this article, can anyone explain me what this means "........ are an ongoing issue, ranging from forced disappearances[1][2], torture[3] to political repression and electoral fraud ......". Wikipedia policy does not say that you write whatever you want and block changes afterwards. We need to change words being used in this article along with pov and other tags during our discussion if we should have this article at all. Spasage (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you waffling on about? If the sources say there have been forced disappearances then so do we, which just about goes for the rest. What exactly is not neutral? Perhaps you be a little clearer. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is based on references which are not authenticated. Article is exaggerated in every aspect. If you want continue to push it, it is other story, but having tags would only help this article get better. Otherwise it is just another example of POV articles. Can you answer me, why you want tags to be removed? If they remain there, would this article have less credible? This is wikipedia, not place to place to write articles without any meaning. Not only this, I have some serious doubts about references you have given. Spasage (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I use fake references? Check the fucking references rather than make accusations. The article is not exaggerated at all, now you have two choices here. Tell me what exactly is POV in this article, if you do not I will remove the tags. Your second choice lays in getting lost as you are not helping to improve this article, rather just edit warring in tags which have no place here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What kind of language you are using and why. Secondly, tag should stay for while. Issues can be fixed during the course. Spasage (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You accuse me of using fake references, what did you expect? Flowers and chocolates? Last time, either state unequivocally what in this article is poorly sourced or not written in a neutral manner or I will remove the tag bomb you added. It is against policy to tag an article and then not explain exactly what you think is wrong with the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * References does not seems to be credible enough, requires some time. Please beaware of the fact you are neighter police man not judge of wikipedia. So, dont try to be one. I dont know if you can give any one *Flowers and chocolates*. *fucking references*, mind you they are your own references not mine. Again, if you dont understand what I am saying, leave the tags for sometime so that others can also comment and contribute. Spasage (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I thought, you do in fact have no argument within policy to tag this article. I will remove them. Do not restore them unless you actually have something substantial to say. Actually, you have had 14 days now to check those references. why have you not? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dont remove them for now. Spasage (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have given to reason for me not to. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 86.168.42.54 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

(out)You've had long enough to either verify the sources or actually say what you feel is not neutral about this article. Do not restore the tags without discussion. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Please rename

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir → Human rights abuses in Pakistan-administered Kashmir –
 * Covers both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan. User:92.14.188.24 21:12, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Oppose with existing consensus on the issue: we already have an article for Human rights in Pakistan... Gilgit Baltistan is technically covered in that per Pakistani law as it is not a part of Kashmir as an administration. Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a non neutral title as well as the titles are used for actual entities... Pakistan administered Kashmir is just a term like Indian administered Kashmir to refer to the disputed areas. The article for the counter part is titled Human right abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. Further, we already have a consensus for not keeping such title at the talk page of Azad Kashmir article which got Pakistan-administered Kashmir article merged into that. -- lTopGunl (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for ease of use, 92, you could always create Human rights abuses in Gilgit-Baltistan and link it to the other articles as a see also. The information you added here BTW is already present in the parent article Human rights abuses in Kashmir Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TopGun. How about go one step further and merge this redundant article into Human rights abuses in Kashmir?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no need to merge this article into the parent article, there are more than enough sources to expand it when I have the time. Also given 14,500 hits on GNews for "Pakistan administered Kashmir" it seems a common enough term in usage for an article name. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can support the merge if we can create one good article out of these 3-4. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bad sources
The following content was removed because not one of the sources which were supporting the content are reliable sources. Kashmirherald.com and kashmir-information.com are not reliable academic sources, and neither is the eurasia source which is an opinion piece. It is pertinent to mention that all three of these sources are opinion pieces and written by Indian authors who are neither impartial nor appear to be authoritative on the subject matter. Opinion pieces cannot be used to support fact, let alone be considered academic, that too when they are written by non-notable authors. Please read up WP:RS to get a grisp of what constitutes a reliable source. Thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 04:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC) I totally agree with User:Darkness Shines. Mar4d's reverting was absolutely unnecessary. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   09:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC) By the way, Mr M. L. Kotru is a veteran journalist and former-resident editor of the reputed newspaper The Statesman. He is also a receiver of the Magsaysay award. . He mainly focuses on the Pakistan-related Issues. Mrt3366  (Talk?)   08:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The irony, she burns. Well lets see about your claim regarding the sources. First up Kashmirherald.com, the article is written by "Sreeram Sundar Chaulia studied History at St.Stephen’s College, Delhi, and took a Second BA in Modern History at University College, Oxford. He researched the BJP’s foreign policy at the London School of Economics and is currently analyzing the impact of conflict on Afghan refugees at the Maxwell School of Citizenship, Syracuse, NY" Seems like an academic to me. eurasiareview.com also not an opinion piece as it was written by the South Asia Analysis Group Darkness Shines (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I, for one, do not think that any of the sources become automatically unreliable simply due to the fact Mar4d doesn't like the nationality of the authors. Like DS said, they are academics and if you doubt their credibility that's your POV. The fact that they are from India doesn't make them intrinsically unreliable or untouchable.
 * You are straying off-topic. Kashmirherald and Kashmirinformation.com - both are internet portals/webpages, they are *not* reliable sources or notable for that matter, ask anyone. The sources in question are opinion pieces, using them to cite content is a policy violation. I am going to repeat it again, please read WP:RS and WP:SPS to see what constitutes a reliable source. And eurasiareview.com is not even a proper news website. If these are the types of sources being used, this is becoming a worry. Meet the WP:BURDEN please, otherwise I will have to remove them. @Darkness Shines: Indeed, the irony she burns. I believe you were the one not long ago calling South Asia Analysis a "rubbish source" that has no evidence of editorial control. You've got some explaining to do now, haven't you, to both Mrt3366 and I :) Apparently we don't need anyone to expose your double standards and POV-pushing, I believe you do a mighty good job at giving evidence to use against you yourself.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, please comment on content, not contributor. You made the cliam that those two sources were 1, Op-Eds and 2, not academic. One is academic the other is not an op-ed. That is all I commented upon. You are free to ask at the RSN board about the sources, as I have had to do on other articles were SPS were used, a lot. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * About M L Kotru (Kashmir-Information)

X-occupied-Kashmir
In my recent revisions I changed the word occupied in case of both Indian and Pakistan Kashmir to administered. Administered because it is known as such in neutral, unbiased International media and that is how the regions are referred to by UN. In recent revision by another editor, the Pakistan administered Kashmir was reverted back to PoK after providing a 'reliable reference' i.e. Hindustan Times (nope the Indian part was not reverted - could have cited this source, also a reliable newspaper!)

I'll try to put this once. Indian constitution refers to PaK as PoK, similarly Pakistan's constitution refers to IaK as IoK, therefore you will find plenty of reliable mentions in the media and can put a hundred references of X, Y, and Z newspapers. So as a neutral, unbiased editor its best if throughout the Wikipedia, the term administered in used for both regions. Only a reference in the article of the subject itself should mention of the other term.

With this explanation, I am reverting the said revision. Samar Talk 18:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit

 * This article needs some real copy-editing;

''In Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, Azad Kashmir, numerous disappearances are also reportedly being committed, notably by the Pakistani intelligence agencies, which arrest and disappear persons who refuse to join the “Jihad” against Indian-held Kashmir. Disappearances in Pakistani-held Kashmir: Reports indicate that many people have gone missing after their arrest by the intelligence agencies operating in Pakistan-held Kashmir - Azad Kashmir. Reportedly “persons are arrested and disappeared if they refuse to join or try to leave the forces engaged in the “Jihad” inside Indian-held Kashmir or don’t provide information to the intelligence agencies about the movements of people across the border control line.”''

Bad English and wording. I will try to fix the language without modifying the content or other ongoing issues - only the structure of sentence. Please hold your revisions in the meanwhile to avoid edit conflicts, you can continue with the content development after. Cheers Samar  Talk 14:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also some of the content is redundant and some of the details unnecessary;

''Jehangir, son of Sabir and a resident of Charhoi, Kotli sub district, and Amjad, son of Mohammad Khan, who was a resident of Leepa tehsil, Muzaffarabad district and a soldier in the Pakistan army — both of them went missing after being arrested by ISI. It is alleged that Amjad was working in favour of families of disappeared persons.''

It has been established that people are missing after arrests by the intelligence agencies. Names, contact details, father's name, mother's name, CNIC number, etc of each missing person is unnecessary. Every line of the said report does not need to be regurgitated in the encyclopedic article.


 * As it turned out I had to remove a major chunk of the Cases of Enforced Disappearances. Again, please do not include name and details of individual cases - convert the content into informative prose and add here.
 * So basically what you're saying is that just because you don't like it, it should not be there, is it so? Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   15:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the second bullet, its not for my liking or disliking. The article is cleaned up, poor paraphrasing, sentence structure, language etc is fixed. My job is done, you can continue with your work now. Samar  Talk 15:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, please refrain from removing relevant content. You have made some bold edits and I appreciate that but your edits —— to me at least —— appear to be mildly detrimental to the article. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   16:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My god! Instead of just copy pasting the content from an older revision and fixing its structure, you reverted nine edits where I worked to fix language, spellings and every thing else!! I could say the same about you but this is moot. Here is a suggestion, revert your edit where you reverted mine, copy paste the names of people who disappeared, make a proper prose out of it and add. My problem is not with the content, its with the language and structure. Samar  Talk 16:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy-edit is usually done by non-involved users.BTW changing human rights abuses to human rights abuse is not real copy-editing. Samar, I suggest you give some detailed edit summary so that other users might understand what you intend to do. Thanks  TheStrike  Σagle   16:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

@Samar ma'am (you're a female, right?) , "Instead of just copy pasting the content from an older revision" - you are right. Indeed, it was foolish of me. I will do it don't you worry [ sarcasm intended ]. But I am thinking — since I had problems with almost all the edits you made — what could I have kept anyway? Should I have resisted myself just to keep the trivial edits intact which were based on the condescending claim of "Bad English and wording" and a broken promise of no modification of the content? Would it have been worth it? Was my reversal the morally wrong thing to do? Also, you could have been more careful before deleting germane facts of various disappearance cases, could you not? "My problem is not with the content, its with the language and structure." — Nice, I will try to do it. I will. You might wanna check WP:DEW in the meantime. Mrt 3366   (Talk page?)   16:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New edits to mitigate the concerns raised by Madam Samar
Are these okay? More to come. Mrt 3366   (Talk page?)   17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion
Go back to the last edit, copy paste the text from there, add it here. Instead of putting a separate line for each name, join the events. It looks something like this right now; Make it something like this; Numerous arrests and disappearances have taken place in Azad Kashmir, mostly attributed to XYZ intelligence agencies. In 2007 x was arrested from region for questioning and later went missing. Similarly later in 2009, y was arrested and disappeared. And so on. Remove names of fathers, in fact if there are many people missing from same area, instead of giving their names Sally, Harry, Ali, Usman, Ravi, Pooja... put it in general form. 'From a camp in region, 4 people were arrested or 5 people went missing...
 * X was arrested in x and xxxxx.... [ref 1]
 * Y was arrested in y and yyyyy.... [ref 1]
 * Z was arrested in z and zzzzz.... [ref 1]

If the missing person is notable and received wide media coverage when went missing, should add name of the person separately, for the rest I still suggest remove names.

For the rest of my edits I don't see how that is trivial or non-sense or controversial or POV and only involves changing human rights abuses to human rights abuse. That particular one was just a minor edit. Samar Talk 17:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't do this again. Don't refactor or move my comment without my express consent. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Damn it Mrt, that was an edit conflict, I had no intentions to remove your comment even if they are profane. Don't warn again, politely ask first what happened. Samar  Talk 17:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay mademoiselle, I am gathering that, you should understand that there was no way of knowing what had actually happened, and I simply thought it's my obligation to let you know first in unambiguous terms that you're transgressing. And Damn me? Wow! Anyway what do you mean my comments are "profane"? Pardon my frankness, but you are trying to mock me or something? Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you make a table and show us what sort of change are you talking about so that we could comment on the change and work from there? Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   17:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy-editing + cleanup + structuring

 * According to Mr. Suleria the ISI kidnapped and killed a doctor in May 2011 which lead to a demonstration against the ISI. Who is Mr Suleria? Oh, its in the next line; While speaking to Dr Shabir Choudhry, Afzaal Suleria, President of the United Kashmir People's National Party- Azad Kashmir Chapter said. But who is Shabir Choudhry?
 * It was reported that politically Pakistan-administered Kashmir is a “replica of Pakistan”: Basic Democracy of Ayub Khan and Gen. Zia's Martial Law. I cannot understand the content or context of this line. The semi-colon after replica of Pakistan suggest this is name of a report?
 * In May 2007, the United Nations and other aid agencies temporarily suspended their work after suspected Islamists mounted an arson attack on the home of two aid workers; the organizations had received "warnings against hiring women". Sentence seems perfect till the semi-colon, the text following made it look like as if it was copy-pasted from a report.
 * Also if the name of the article is Human Rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, use the word Azad Kashmir in the whole body. Had it been Pakistan Administered Kashmir, should have used that. Avoid the terms controlled, occupied, held etc.

That's all from me. For a final note I am not an involved editor - never edited here before, living in the region does not make me involved. Saw poor structure, wanted to fix it. Samar Talk 17:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think you are involved, albeit maybe not as involved as others may think. You are doing good, don't worry. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   17:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @Samar.never mind the involved thing.Someone suddenly comes and makes multiple edits with insufficient edit-summaries can sometimes be troublesome.Glad you have explained everything here. Cheers  TheStrike  Σagle   07:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Some sources to Expand the article
sources to Expand the article
 * https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/09/21/pakistan-free-kashmir-far-free
 * https://www.hrw.org/report/2006/09/20/friends-these/human-rights-violations-azad-kashmir
 * https://www.firstpost.com/world/human-rights-violations-in-pok-ngo-report-had-raised-red-flag-over-torture-repression-in-2006-2450358.html

-- D Big X ray  13:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)