Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir/Archive 2

Rape in JnK and abuses in Northeast India, Assam relevant here?
Are the articles about Rape or abuses in northeast India really equally pertinent here as "Jammu and Kashmir" or "Azad Kashmir"?

Although it's an essentially "editorial judgement", how Manipur, Assam and then whole Northeast are relevant here I fail to properly see. I mean, let's not turn the See also section into a morass of POV wars in the name of even-handedness. Kindly recognize the two different issues here, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is Rape in Jammu Kashmir really needed in "see also" it seems like a pointy edit by Mar4d. Should I start including the rape related articles here, then the cases of domestic violence? Will it be helpful? How is rape related article required when we already have have Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir listed?
 * 2) I previously added Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, and articles about Sindh, Baluchistan since they were all related to India-Pakistan conflict in way or another. Then came Mar4d with his pointy edit
 * It really boggles the mind that you see Human rights in Baluchistan and Sindh etc. as "related" and when the same is applied to human rights issues in India articles, you conveniently choose to go a step back on your words and adopt your usual double standards. What rubbish. Let me get this right, you're just being the typical hardcore fundamentalist/nationalist POV-pusher that you usually are. You were the one, I believe, ranting on about "Human rights abuses in other disturbed territories of either country" being relevant in the section above. How you shrewdly contradict yourself does not even leave me surprised. And Rape in Jammu and Kashmir not being relevant, really, was that your overdue April Fool's? I thought I had enough evidences already on your blatant POV-pushing and smokescreen, and you're welcome for proving that yet again. Mr. Mrt3366, what world are you living in?!  Mar4d  ( talk ) 00:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no time for your histrionics, you, my dear, have not provided one single valid reason why you think Rape in JnK is required here when there is an article about Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir? How is Manipur or the entire northeast India related to Indo-Pak conflict I fail to see. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cut the crap Mrt rape in Jammu and Kashmir the most relevant see also section there could ever be rape is a human rights abuse unless in India rape is regarded as "normal" since allot of women are being raped on your public transport these days you may have become desensitised to the magnitude of rape in the civilised world rape is regarded as a human rights abuse but maybe India is different? what makes you think balochistan is relevant to kashmir? JantorAzeem (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Account blocked as a sockpuppet on Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * @Mrt: It's obviously relevant as the rape is occuring in Jammu and Kashmir, which further is a part of Kashmir region. So both topics are linked. I don't really understand your absurd logic of how Balochistan and Sindh are even remotely related to the Indo-Pakistan conflict. Also surprising is the fact that you don't find Rape in Jammu and Kashmir relevant yet see nothing wrong with irrelevant articles all clustered under a see-also heading. The only link I can find between India and human rights in Balochistan are the numerous assertions of India-funded terrorism in Balochistan. That's about it. As for Sindh... I can't see any link with India or Kashmir either. PS. I'm nominating this article for AfD as it has become a POV nightmare as of late and is also a content fork of already existing articles.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminder and Warning about discretionary sanctions
Folks, may I remind everyone here that this topic is currently covered by discretionary sanctions placed by ArbCom. What's said here has been said, so let's forget about it, but, going forward, any comment that is anything other than a direct reference to specific content that is to be included, excluded, or molded will be subject to an immediate block without notice. If you have wish to make a personal remark about the behavior of an editor, make it elsewhere (at an RfC/U, at ANI, or to an admin) but don't make it on this talk page. --regentspark (comment) 01:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much HRV
Mehrajmir there is not much "human rights violations" (HRV) in what you're trying to put in. See the discussion. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * First the heading of this discussion suggested by Mrt Not much HRV, that means he admits there‘s HRV though not much. Secondly, I have given all the reasons in the discussion why to include the content which may be reffered to.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 15:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) There is clearly a disagreement over whether human rights violations are a modern invention or whether the term can also be applied to earlier atrocities and more or less systematic mistreatments before the term came into use. I am inclined to think it is more useful to cover the events, perhaps with a note in the article on terminology (when the modern term came into use) than to make a division based on what words were used in earlier times. I have therefore made an initial rearrangement of the article to incoporate the earlier material as Background and divided that part and the part on the current (post-partition) situation into subsections. I've expanded the lead a bit but I think it needs further work so I've templated it accordingly. The Background section clearly needs proper expansion of the Afghan rule section, and the creation of a section before that on Mughal rule. And I have omitted one sub-point (Chinese occupation) that was rightly flagged as not in the source. I think this is a better basis from which to judge what the article will look like with the earlier parts of the history included. Responses? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because the phrase 'human rights abuses' is perceived as a recent terminology cannot be used as grounds for denying that atrocities have taken place against humans in all stages of history. The article would do well to cover not only modern human rights issues but it should go into history as well IMO, because the context of the latter is still relevant to the broader topic. When we talk about human rights violations, we mean anything and everything that has violated basic human freedoms. This definition extends to previous empires and dynasties' treatment of the people they ruled and their imposition of discriminatory laws or systematic violations of other rights of people etc. The content recently inserted into the article is fair and relevant. The burden lies on the remover of the content to substantiate their objections.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

If the article is going to cover all historical human rights violations in Kashmir, then I suggest that some thought be given to renaming the article, perhaps to History of human rights violations in the Kashmir region or something along those lines. "Human rights violations in Kashmir" is too oriented toward the present as a title given its enlarged temporal scope. --regentspark (comment) 13:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose that, shall we go back to when a guy in a cave clubbed another guy and dragged his woman off by the hair? You cannot equate what happened with the Durani empire to HRV in the modern sense, and to do so is a violation of WP:OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. It doesn't make much sense to me to go beyond HR abuses in the current Kashmir. But, if that's where we end up then the article title needs to be changed as well. --regentspark (comment) 14:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The root cause of HRV in Kashmir is the foreign rule which started in Mughal emperor and still continue (as per refs). Kashmir is divided between two different nations and have two different articles on the same subject, then why keep this article. It‘s a broad term and should cover all the HRV‘s which began with cease of its independence, to make a sense. I dont know what‘s the problem with this.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, and hyperbole about guys in caves and the Neolithic doesn't explain why it's OR. It seems justifiable to cover the historical background, if only as stated above to justify having a separate article on Kashmir as a whole. How about a statement in the article clarifying when the term "human rights abuses" came into use? Can any reliable source be found, preferably scholarly, setting that usage in the context of previous terminology and scholarly attitudes toward policies and acts that are now so classified? The material removed includes several references for outside observers commenting on the mistreatment of the local peasants. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is OR unless you have a source which explicitly describes any actions by previous rulers as HRV. Otherwise as stated, anything can be called a HRV and added to the article. So unless someone actually has such a reference, which I doubt having already searched myself it would be original research on our part to make that claim ourselves. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DS makes a good point. Something is a 'human rights abuse' only if reliable sources call it that. Otherwise, "mistreatment of peasants" or 'foreign rule' is merely mistreatment of peasants and foreign rule. These things have to be discussed, by scholarly sources, in the context of human rights abuse. --regentspark (comment) 15:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe Mehrajmir13 also has a valid point, that the background is needed to clarify, for example, why Kashmir is a flashpoint for the inter-religious conflict, and why the overarching term "Kashmir" at all; if we restrict ourselves to the modern situation, there is little justification for this article given that there are separate articles on the current administrative units. Also what is now called human rights violations didn't spring into being with the United Nations; there are precursor terms and concepts, as demonstrated by the citations. People did not condone abuses until the current term was invented. I think it should be clearly portrayed as background, and references should be found regarding changing terminology and/or how far such practices were condoned in this area; how widespread was the reaction to the treatment of the local population? And obviously, the two earliest sections need to be written up and have references there (rather than in the lead). I think Mehrajmir13 has some digging to do (I know very little about this topic). But I disagree that it is irrelevant or that it's putting together two different things (OR). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The term has been around long enough for historians to have used it to describe past events. The thing is that we can't just pick and choose historical incidents and label them ourselves - that would be OR. --regentspark (comment) 10:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All these are appropriate for the article History of Kashmir not here. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with RP. Good to see you here, DS. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I advise DS and RP to read the definition of HRV‘s and then judge forced labour, restrainment of religious rights and enacting inhumane laws. And what is wrong with the section “Line of Control“ which as internationally is not a recognised border. Give me a chance to find some refs and sources and to change some terms to make it relevant, for that the content removed may be restored or I‘ve to restore it on my own.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 08:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mherajmir13, if something is an human rights violation then, surely, it has been explicitly identified as such by historians. We shouldn't be reading definitions and analyzing situations, that is the province of peer reviewed journals. --regentspark (comment) 10:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not restore it, none of it is HRV. You are engaging in OR as has been explained to you a lot. Learn to listen. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Re @RegentsPark: The thing is that we can't just pick and choose historical incidents and label them ourselves - that would be OR .... well then, maybe this article needs a change of title. Something like History of human rights in Kashmir might be appropriate. The point is that the historical info is relevant and there is no valid reason for deleting it just because of the article's title and some people's personal perceptions here. Also, as Yngvadottir points out, there seems to be little reason or purpose that is served by the existence of this article, especially when already have articles for human rights in Jammu and Kashmir & Azad Kashmir. It might as well should go to AfD if the historical info is not covered in here.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Mar4d, if we label something as a human rights abuse then that is certainly OR. Historians should be doing that. For example, look at the lead in this version of the article which says that HR abuses started with the overthrow and imprisonment of the Chak ruler of Kashmir. The two sources merely assert the historical fact that he was overthrown, not that this started a trend of HR abuses in Kashmir. Labeling this as the genesis of HR abuses in Kashmir is nothing but a theory of whoever added it to the article and that is clear original research. If that is indeed the genesis of HR abuses, then we need reliable historians to assert that that is indeed the case. Whether the article should be titled this or that, or whether it should be deleted or kept, are separate issues but, regardless, we can't have the article asserting personal, non-peer reviewed, opinions. --regentspark (comment) 14:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, as again it would be OR. As for AFDing this article that would be pointless, this is a parent article and gives an overview of abuses throughout the region, BTW we do not have an article for HRV in Gilgit Baltistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with RegentsPark in this discussion, having faced similar issues of nomenclature with regard to other articles. Even if you discount the requirement that the so-called HRV are discussed as such by historians and allow the weaker requirement that the term is used by news sources (which are often hyperbolic when it comes to this sort of thing), we need to arrive at a consensus regarding what constitutes HRV and we need to do so without relying on our article about that subject, which may itself be screwed up. What we definitely cannot do is call something HRV that is not called thus by WP:RS, and the same applies to terms such as "terrorism", "separatist" etc. These are emotive/subjective terms and without careful use they can undermine our requirement for neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You admit that this‘s a parent article, and oppose incidents from history pre-partition. Your point is Gilgit Baltistan, which can be covered in Azad Kashmir as both are administered by Pakistan. How‘s this OR with RS, the land‘s the same, people are the same, yes  violations, opprssion may differ because of time. The lead sec was placed with rewrite template, but why will you help in rewrite. Provide a good reason of non restoration of the content or it will be restored.   Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 02:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong,
 * Azad Kashmir is not Gilgit Baltistan (GB) just as Ireland (North) is not Scotland although both fall under the UK administration.
 * that fact that GB is "administered by Pakistan" has no bearing in its geographical location if we are talking about pre-partition history.
 * Let's create either a new article for Gilgit Baltistan based on the materials here.
 * Hope it helps. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a geographical article. Before partition it was all Kashmir. By saying wrong, delete you cant chage the truth and truth is that Kashmir was never part of any country.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 07:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose adding something which you decide is a HRV. In god we trust, all others bring sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You want sources, below are some which talk in brief the life under the Sickh rule and mentions violations. Take a look
 *  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 *  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 05:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Your 1. and 2. don't call them as "human rights abuse" per se. 3rd source mentions "Kashmiris Human Rights Abuse Figures From January 1997". Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinsertion of OR
All the Durrani junk was discussed ages ago, why is it being put back? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There‘s nothing from the Durrani, however it can be added. The page was previously nominated for deletion which resulted in Keep therefore it is imperative to highlight the cause of the conflict. Otherwise there‘re pages of the same material like Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir. It is not OR, it is well sourced and pertains to the subject. Please help the page in covering the incidents from the past so as to make it different from its sub-articles.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 13:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * How many of the sources you used for the content actually discuss HRA? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Content Removals
Several of User:212.50.177.101's edits have been constructive, removing biased, unsourced or dubious materials. However, there are wholesale removal of sourced sections. If there is a reason to remove this material can it be laid out here.SPACKlick (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Pre-independence
I have reverted the changes made by removing the pre-independence background and history of abuses in Kashmir. As the reliable sources cited in those parts of the article show, Kashmir has a history of human-rights abuses that predates the modern dispute, and tehre is no objective reason to restrict the article to the post-independence situation of the dispute over the territory. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The pre-independence material is not documented as human rights abuses. If you read the references listed, they are all histories with no allegations of human rights abuses and therefore, rather than providing 'context' are merely, at best, original research and, at worst, pov pushing. Documented human rights abuses are post India's independence and it is not Wikipedia's place to reframe history one way or another. We merely report and summarize secondary sources and don't make our own judgements. I assume you've reverted me in good faith but suggest you read the sources before reverting me again. --regentspark (comment) 14:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (Also, note that I'm merely restoring the stable version of the article. I removed the new content manually because there were intermediate edits and I didn't want to lose those.--regentspark (comment) 16:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC))


 * There was previous discussion of this issue, but this version has been in place for a while; I had regarded it as stable. When was the material you removed inserted?


 * As mentioned in the previous discussion, there's an issue of recentism, whether the phenomenon of human rights violations should be restricted to the period after the UN adopted and publicised the term. I find the argument that the phenomenon predates the term compelling. Possibly the section should be shorter than it was and clearly marked as background, but I had left it in place because I believed it was indeed short and clearly marked as background. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless reliable secondary sources classify something as hr abuse, I don't see how we can do it. The when-added diff is this one. (Could you link to the previous discussion you mention in your post? Thanks.)--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So since May - I had thought that was the new stable version. The previous discussions were here and the following section, both in December 2012, and here in April 2013. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. I see that I've contributed to the second discussion (had forgotten about that). But, as both discussions show, the Mughal empire stuff is OR and should stay out of the article. If we're going to be in the business of identifying hr abuses in the past we're going to have articles on every region, nation, whatever (think serfs). For the mughal material to be included in this article, we need to see (1) reliable sources that use the term human rights abuses in pre-independence India and/or (2) a relationship between some of that Mughal history and the modern human rights abuses in Kashmir. Otherwise this is both original research (calling medieval practices human rights abuse) and synthesis (linking mughals etc. to modern hr abuses). --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it's recentism not to indicate that this has happened before in this region, and I took the silence after the background was last introduced as assent. But absent a source that actually makes the connection, I agree there is a yawning gap between the two viewpoints. I'll ping, who has good access to the sources, but he's probably already searched for such an explicit statement and appears to have quit. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2014 (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 13:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/002/1995/en/42cb86f1-1ffe-4b90-a12d-c3f6f03b164d/asa200021995en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001190813/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/Armed%20forces%20_J%26K_%20Spl.%20powers%20act%2C%201990.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/Armed%20forces%20_J%26K_%20Spl.%20powers%20act%2C%201990.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120601035500/http://archives.dawn.com/archives/30198 to http://archives.dawn.com/archives/30198

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title breaches NPOV
The article title appears to be in breach of WP:NPOV.

There is a difference between Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu & Kashmir.

The title needs to be renamed to 'Human Rights situation in Jammu & Kashmir' or a similarly neutral title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5990:9400:603F:3147:176E:299D (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are even saying. Please see the first para of the lead of the article Kashmir, which is well sourced:
 * So, your argument does not hold any water. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So, your argument does not hold any water. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights abuses in Kashmir. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130430003129/http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=731448 to http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=731448

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

AFSPA details removed per NFC
Following Wikipedia's WP:NFC criteria, I have moved out the detailed content on AFSPA copied from Government docs. Even the Amnesty quotes have been paraphrased instead of copy paste following the WP:NFC, kindly do not restore the non free contents. -- D Big X ray  13:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of longstanding content
DbigXray your frequent content removal appears seems unjustifiable. You remove content by falsely labelling it to be violating NFC, when it does not. It is WP:DUE and existed here since 2014. You are misrepresenting sources as well by repeating the human rights abuses carried out in Pakistan's side while minimizing the human rights abuses by Indian side as "alleged" or "carried out during India's counter terrorism operations". "carried out during India's counter terrorism operations" is not supported by the source but it appears to be your own WP:OR. I can go own but this should be enough to state that your edits are misleading.  Mehra j Mir  (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As shown in this edit from 2014 it was you who added this content in a mass copying that violated both internal and external copyrights without providing any attribution to the wikipedia article from where you copied this content.
 * I have removed the blatantly copied content again as it is a blatant WP:NFCC violation(s) that included large scale copying of content from Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act if you add this again in this article then you will be reported for WP:COPYVIO, please consider yourself warned. This article is not on AFSPA, so mass copying from the act is not allowed. please explain why it is WP:DUE in this article when the article already contains an internal wikilink to AFSPA.
 * Lot of copyright violations exist on wikipedia articles for several years, which does not mean that it is somehow ok or is allowed.
 * Nothing is misleading, you need to read the book properly, the Book clearly states on page 306, the following
 * Since you have been proved wrong now you should strike off or remove your baseless accusation of misrepresentation in your comment above. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  01:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Content is not a violation of WP:NFCC since it is properly attributed to Ministry of Law and Justice of India and is freely available.
 * Again you should tell where sources say "carried out during India's counter terrorism operations"? It says "unlawful counterterrorist excesses by India including arbitrary detention, disappearances" where as you are misrepresenting it like the alleged abuses like torture, detention, etc. by Indian forces occurred only during the valid counter terrorist operations when source is contradicts it by saying "unlawful".
 * As for the content you are removing by falsely claiming it as a violation of copyrights is actually covered by gazillions reliable sources in relation to this subject. Why it should not be here? 39.33.42.140 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As for the content you are removing by falsely claiming it as a violation of copyrights is actually covered by gazillions reliable sources in relation to this subject. Why it should not be here? 39.33.42.140 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Did you read the Book on page 306 I linked above ? Please read it and then please explain what "counterterrorist" means to you ? Which country is carrying it in Kashmir ? and how is it carried ?
 * Why should AFSPA details be here ? This is an article on Human rights, there is a link to AFSPA, already, there is no reason to copy paste all the points of the Act to a human rights article. The article should be discussing the human rights repercussions of AFSPA and not start defining the AFSPA act itself. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  03:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Those counter-terrorist operations are not lawful according to the source, yet you are giving the impression that all of those abuses only concern the counterterrorist operations and ignoring that they are unlawful. This way you are just misrepresenting the reference.
 * When gazillions of reliable sources are detailing the "AFSPA details" with relation to the human rights abuses as I mentioned above, then why this article should not? 39.33.33.160 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like I will need to quote the entire line for it to be clear to you.
 * The books on page 306 has below quote.
 * The above has been added in the article stating.
 * disappearances, torture and arbitrary executions are all "unlawful" There is absolutely no need to state the obvious that torture is unlawful etc etc.
 * How is this addition a misrepresentation ? Either you are unable to comprehend the meaning of the Quote from the book or you dont really understand what misrepresentation means. Either way it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR.
 * The books have a lot of things, just because a lot of things are there in the book is no reason to add everything into the article. You need to explain why does all the 8 points of the AFSPA act needs to be listed in this article here and why a wikilink to AFSPA is not sufficient enough knowing that this is a human rights article and not an AFSPA article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How is this addition a misrepresentation ? Either you are unable to comprehend the meaning of the Quote from the book or you dont really understand what misrepresentation means. Either way it appears to me as an English language related WP:CIR.
 * The books have a lot of things, just because a lot of things are there in the book is no reason to add everything into the article. You need to explain why does all the 8 points of the AFSPA act needs to be listed in this article here and why a wikilink to AFSPA is not sufficient enough knowing that this is a human rights article and not an AFSPA article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are trying to justify the abuse as part of operation when the operation themselves constituted human rights abuse since they are "unlawful" according to the source. You are clearly misrepresenting them. You have to treat them as illegal and human rights abuse like detention, torture, etc. according to the source instead of mentioning counter terrorism operation as justification.
 * You were disputing the importance of "AFSPA detail" without any basis. It is necessary to add them because reliable sources also mentions them as a significant concern. Without pointing out those points the article is no way clear about the issue which is massively discussed as part of human rights abuses. 39.33.33.160 (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any country in the world where torture is legal ? or disappearance is legal ? or arbitrary execuation is legal ? Please let me know, I am honestly curious to know. I am not justifying anything. I wrote on the basis of what the source said. Please seek help of WP:REFDESK or WP:HELPDESK if it is not clear to you. Since you keep repeating "misrepresentation" again and again, it appears to me that you dont really understand the meaning of the word "misrepresentation".
 * yes, by all means add the link of AFSPA but why do you need to add the entire AFSPA ACT into this article, you are skirting my question. Discussing the human right implication of AFSPA is needed here . The massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA Act is not needed here, if you think "massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA Act" is needed here you need to clarify why. No one is stopping you to discuss AFSPA, I am preventing a "massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA Act" into this article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Content is not violating copyvio or NFCC like it has been already told enough times and you are aware of half a dozen scholarly sources who considers these AFSPA act as a part of human rights abuses and include the details about the act. We should do the same. Finally, "counterterrorists" means excess carried out with an intention to counter terrorists. Not that it means excess carried out during "counter terrorism operations", so if anyone is having issues with "English language related WP:CIR" that is only you.  Mehra j Mir  (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * scholarly sources who considers these AFSPA act as a part of human rights abuses which is why AFSPA is mentioned in the article. You have to explain why you feel it is paramount to  do a "massive copy pasting of the entire AFSPA Act" into this article. This is the dispute here. There is no dispute that AFSPA has been criticised on the grounds of human right abuses.
 * regarding counterterrorist, You have the quote above from the book, lets see what is your preferred version of the quote from the book above. we can then see and add that if it fits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have reverted again claiming that there is "no consensus" despite no one except you has opposed the long-standing content. The IP above has already described you enough times that why the inclusion is justified. I don't see any good reason behind your revert.  Mehra j Mir  (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted a long message on your talk page with advice + wikilinks, on how to proceed in such situations. It will be helpful for you and the article if you follow my advice. I am still waiting for your answers to my questions above. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2019
convert "The conflict started after the partition of India in 1947 as a dispute over the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir" to "The conflict started when Pakistan invaded the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir that had decided to remain independent after the partition of India in 1947"

The current text suggests that the conflict originated as part of the partition, however it was not the case. Kashmir had decided to exercise its right to remain independent post partition, but Pakistan tried to convince the then ruler to join Pakistan. When he did not agree, Pakistan decided to forcefully take control of independent state of Kashmir. It resulted into conflict when the king Hari Singh signed a treaty with India. Suryap2011 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Changed as requested. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Above was reverted due to the same reasons as those given here. Lead revised since. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that suggests that India placed any territorial claims on Kashmir after the independence. Saying that "The conflict started after the partition of India" is equally logical as saying that it started after the birth of Jesus Christ. Both are technically correct, and a modern-day journalist could use one over the other that suits their mischievous and manipulative intentions. However, this comes as a surprise from the elite editors on a platform like Wikipedia. India placed its claim on the territory only after its rightful ruler (Hindu or otherwise) signed a treaty to merge the land ruled by him (not that only he merged with India) with India. It would be correct to say that conflict started after its ruler merged Kashmir with India. Now it may make sense to further add why he decided to do it. At this point, it is reasonable to mention the Pakistani Tribal Invasion as the trigger. As such, there seems to be clear intension including opinions along with the facts - "Pakistan invaded after there was internal revolt" (is it sufficient reason?), "Hindu ruler of Kashmir merged with India" (do we always mention religion of a ruler doing something like this?) I would vote to put up this article for review for carrying biases.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 August 2019
The intro says "The dispute began in 1947 with the partition of the British Indian Empire.." which is factually incorrect. Kashmir had decided to remain independent - a decision on the lines of that of Nepal and Bhutan. Kashmir would have remained an independent country had it not been the Pakistan's invasion to forcefully capture the territory of Kashmir. And it happened 2-3 months after the independence and partition of India. The Kashmir conflict has got nothing to do with the Partition and even mentioning it alongside partial, with an agenda to hide the facts behind the conflict.

I think it must be changed accordingly. One of my previous proposals were rejected so I leave it to the admins on how to make it factually correct and impartial.

As for the process for submitting edit requests - I suggest to change it to "The dispute began in 1947 when the Pakistan's forces Invaded territory of Kashmir with an intention to capture it, when the negotiations led by Jinnah had failed with Hari Singh" Suryap2011 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead has been rewritten to provide clearer context, but part of the discussion on your proposal is here. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  D Big X ray ᗙ  07:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Melmann 15:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that suggests that India placed any territorial claims on Kashmir after the independence. Saying that "The conflict started after the partition of India" is equally logical as saying that it started after the birth of Jesus Christ. Both are technically correct, and a modern-day journalist could use one over the other that suits their mischievous and manipulative intentions. However, this comes as a surprise from the elite editors on a platform like Wikipedia. India placed its claim on the territory only after its rightful ruler (Hindu or otherwise) signed a treaty to merge the land ruled by him (not that only he merged with India) with India. It would be correct to say that conflict started after its ruler merged Kashmir with India. Now it may make sense to further add why he decided to do it. At this point, it is reasonable to mention the Pakistani Tribal Invasion as the trigger. As such, there seems to be clear intention of including opinions along with the facts - "Pakistan invaded after there was internal revolt" (is it sufficient reason?), "Hindu ruler of Kashmir merged with India" (do we always mention religion of a ruler doing something like this?) I would vote to put up this article for review for carrying biases. Suryap2011 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Kautilya3 you want to take a look ?-- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How is the partition of India unrelated? It is a key part of the background surrounding the beginning of the tensions and conflict. The origin of the differences between India and Pakistan is religious, so the religion here is relevant context. This is also the lead, and what you describe are details of the actual Kashmir conflict which is linked in the first sentence. The more detailed history is not the topic of this article and certainly not the lead, which aims to summarize the article per MOS:LEAD. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Small error
"Many number of massacres" at #Jammu_and_Kashmir. I can't fix this, could someone else? Pmaxhogan (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out! — MarkH21 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add the contents of this article
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/04/india-abuses-persist-jammu-and-kashmir APT141 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2023
Grossly misleading edit last paragraph of Azad Kashmir section which states "The peoples national alliance organised a rally to free Kashmir from Pakistani rule" Deustche Welle source actually states this: "The protesters were demanding that Azad Kashmir's existing legislative assembly be converted into a constitutional assembly and the area's unification with the Gilgit-Baltistan region. " How on earth do edits like these get through ? 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:D418:E02F:A6D5:AA0A (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 2A02:C7C:6782:7A00:D418:E02F:A6D5:AA0A (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding that one citation re Al Qaeda
It's from 2008 and while it isn't invalid, it would make sense to use a more current version of the source to update the paragraph. Ozmungs (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Human rights definition
It seems that some editors have tried to stick all the possible complaints in this article, including abuses by militant groups. However, by definition human rights are entitlements that can only be claimed from the state – private people, businesses or organisations cannot carry out "human rights violations". Only states are parties to international human right treaties and are entrusted to respect them, not private entities, and it is only states that can uphold or violate human rights.

Militant organisations are governed by respective national legislation which usually considers them criminal groups. Their prosecution, if any, is based on national criminal laws; never on international human right treaties. Because, not being party to human right treaties, militant outfits technically cannot violate them.

Consequently, I suggest removing from this article all the complaints related to "human rights violations" supposedly carried out by private entities, as it's doctrinally wrong; or, otherwise, term these acts as "abuses of civilian population", "criminal acts", etc. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)