Talk:Kashmir conflict/Archive 2

Azad Kashmir
The section is heavily inclined towards one reference. The reference clearly states ''This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.''. As such it cannot be used to support these statements. They can only be written as POV and not as facts. This section needs to be corrected as it heavily cites this reference for facts Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't you correct it as you deem fit (and others are watching the page anyway)? After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative process. I trust you. But being "heavily inclined towards one reference" (which I think it is not) doesn't make it unreliable. Mrt3366   (Talk?)   09:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * i dont think killbill is questioning the reliability. The ref actually does say it is an opinion and not UNHRC endorsed statements, so I concur with them that the lang needs to change98.225.186.174 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Spaghetti Section
This section has become spaghetti. A paragraph is devoted to human rights violations commited by Indian forces, then a para to kashmiri pandits, then to something else, then we return to kashmiri pandits and human rights violations and repeat a lot of material. A lot of it is redundant, some is not, so will need to be repurposed. I tried to consolidate some, but am struggling due to lack of time.

Second issue is the rediff reference. It is a person's opinion (an opinion column). It cannot be used to support these claims, see WP:RS. One can put them back, but will need RS support. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree on one condition that the proposal of restructuring / repositioning, or as you say "repurposing", extends to subsequent Pakistani section too. These sections were to contain just the brief summary of their respective articles but now it has become a collection of disjointed and haphazard assertions without a direction.
 * 2) This is a section whose POV is disputed. Hence, don't do this again. This is an extremely sensitive article. This article needs work but prior to that you ought to discuss any significant change that you're planing to bring. Rashly reorganizing language or deleting large amount of data in only one of the two very similar sections, doesn't count as insignificant. Please refrain from biased editing. Weasel words (of which, there are many), e.g. "alleged" et al, should be avoided unless the reference explicitly says so in its page. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   04:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did *not* delete significant sections as you claim. If you see *carefully*, i have only reorganized them, moved the paragraphs around. So, please do not make unsubstantiated claims against someone. Secondly, i have noticed your edits over the past few weeks and you are completely trying to undo the balancing pieces of this article. It seems, unlike me, you have a lot of time on your hands, so I would request you to use it wisely to enhance WP and not destroy it14:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killbillsbrowser (talk • contribs)
 * In any case, you brought a substantial change without prior discussion. The re-structuring was itself unneeded. You didn't explain it in the edit summary. Cleanup is something else, I do not know what to call the stuff you did in the guise of a cleanup. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   15:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second, “It seems, unlike me, you have a lot of time on your hands, so I would request you to use it wisely to enhance WP and not destroy it ” — what is that supposed to mean?? Destroy wikipedia? Do you think, just because I disagree with you, that automatically means I am here to destroy wikipedia? Assume good faith please. Choose your words more cautiously, and be polite. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
What's wrong, guys? --Jayemd (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * From what it looks like on the Spaghetti Section and the page history, you guys are having issues with Verifiability and Neutrality. My advice would be, before these minor incidents evolve into a serious edit war, to verify the sources in the article and if, and only if, it is not a sufficent amount of coverage by that source to acceptably fulfill the referenced information in question, then just remove it and explain doing so only if the other users ask you. Now, on to the neutrality issue. If you have any doubts on the point of view of the article, simply edit whatever information that renders it such, and just like what I recommended with the verifiability dispute, only explain your edit if you are asked by other users. Hopefully, this will solve this potential edit war and clear any doubts about Wikipedia's conflict resolution. --Jayemd (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So, how is the issue now? Did you use what I told you guys? --Jayemd (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for the advice. The issue here is that editor Mrt hits the undo button at a heartbeat on any changes someone may perform. I assume good faith, so other than IDONTLIKEIT, i do not see any other issues here, because if there were, no editor would at the sound of a hearbeat hit undo. I am more than willing to accept that someone edit the language or raise an issue so that it is corrected for neutrality, however, have serious issue with what Mrt is doing with the article. You can check his last (innnumerable) edits. 98.225.186.174 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I will report this to the Noticeboard. --Jayemd (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute
I see some edit warring between two users on this page. I strongly encourage both users to discuss it here or bring it to DRN rather than edit warring. Electric Catfish 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * while we were at it, there was yet another revert by Mrt3366. If this continues without check WP will no longer be a trusted source for people Killbillsbrowser (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * He has r-quoted the following, now my question is why?
 * "'Indian security forces have assaulted civilians during search operations, tortured and summarily executed detainees in custody and murdered civilians in reprisal attacks. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community.' -RAPE IN KASHMIR - A Crime of War by Asia Watch, Human Rights Watch and Physicians for Human Rights"
 * First notice that this is not an opinion of an individual who is a victim there, that would have made sense. This is a report. We usually don't r-quote a random, long section from a report as opposed simply quoting it as we normally do. That is my objection. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   06:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have turned it into a block quote because it was too large section of a random report, as opposed to some victim's solemn testimony, hope this is acceptable. Mrt  3366   (Talk page?)   07:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There you go! See? You guys can work together to hopefully make a featured article out of this! --Jayemd (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed infobox
I invite users who say it is vandalism, it is disruption, it is damage to the user. I want to say to them, "Template:Infobox of military conflict should be used here. Why do the users have objections. It is long military conflicts. It generated Indo-Pakistani Wars, Sino-Indian War, Chola incident and 1987 Sino-Indian skirmish. It involves the following parties Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami  Lashkar-e-Taiba  Jaish-e-Mohammed  Hizbul Mujahideen  Harkat-ul-Mujahideen  Al-Badr Hafiz Muhammad Saeed  Maulana Masood Azhar  Sayeed Salahudeen  Fazlur Rehman Khalil  Farooq Kashmiri  Arfeen Bhai (until 1998)  Bakht Zameen Why can't there be any infobox for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozoisis (talk • contribs) 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * combatant1=[[Image:Flag of India.svg|22px]] India
 * commander2=[[Image:Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front flag.svg|22px]] Amanullah Khan
 * The infobox you're trying to instate there is a military conflict infobox, which is sometimes referred to as a warbox and is used to summarize information about a particular military conflict (a battle, campaign, war, or group of related wars) in a standard manner. Kashmir conflict is not about one particular military conflict. There are other articles for that. Check WP:3RR, WP:BRD. Bold edit→Reverted→Discussion. This is the way to surmount other consequent issues. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict have generated Indo-Pakistani Wars and one Sino-Indian War. War on Terror has also related conflicts but it has a war box, therefore I think the reason u have given baseless.--Jozoisis (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Kashmir conflict is not about one particular military conflict. There are other articles for exactly this purpose. Kashmir conflict is not about any war in particular. It's about the claims of Pakistan, India and China. Simple mention of the wars is more than enough. No need for a warbox. Mrt 3366  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, what you are only doing is wasting your own time arguing instead of using my advice I gave you a few sections ago. DON'T USE TALK PAGES AS A WAY TO FURTHER YOUR DISAGREEMENTS! I cannot stress this enough. At least try to execute my advice so that you won't be edit warring again. Does that sound like a winner? --Jayemd (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012
Please remove scrolling from the references. Scroll boxes should not be used in the article space because they affect printability. See Scroll box

130.91.93.243 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- S M S  Talk 20:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Indian administered Kashmir
Please add your issues (if any) regarding this section if you feel is not neutral. The previous discussion was resolved, but some editors think it was not. That section has become too complicated to trace back. So what I request is you read the section and add here where you think is disputed. I will then put the disputed tag back to the section till it is resolved. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Pervez Musharraf's Interview in Exile
These claims and comments are POV, whether it is his claim that Pakistan was complicit in the formation of militant groups or his claim that India is killing civilians. None of these can be used as facts. In exile, he neither represents the govt. of pakistan nor the people of kashmir. So, his views have to be kept in the article "as is". Adding his "confession" as a fact and then using weasel words to remove POV from the innocent killings is double standards. As mentioned earlier, WP is not to judge or certify something, it just represents what is said. In such cases, (interviews), the statements need to be as they are spoken, in quotes and without paraphrasing. How about I start paraphrasing the sentence of the Kashmiri Hindu talking to BBC to " The person claimed people, who according to him, were armed insurgents, allegedly tortured and killed". How would this sound? Also, please do not start reverting people's edits without discussion, unless it is vandalism, deletion etc as we saw in the recent past that led to semi-protection of the page. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now as it seems, I think the lines that you added are irrelevant and are lending UNDUE weight to one man's POVs. By the way, I wasn't using rollback Killbillbrowser. I don't know what you understand about the usage of the word confession, but it's confession when it is an act of admitting that you have done something which you previously kept secret or denied. That's simple english. I removed your lines. Do not obscure the significance of the heading. Please do not edit war. The quotation is being used without pertinence. Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics such as quotations. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Confession could be used when we know that what this guy is saying is actually the truth. At this point, he could be making stuff up. He does not represent anybody besides himself, so to make the statement that Pakistani government was involved is way too much to state as a confession. Remember, this guy was part of an illegitimate government anyway during his tenure, so if you want it here, it has to be either presented as statements of washed out for POV, just as you want it for the civilian killings statement.
 * On another note, you are Edit warring, not me and yes you did | revert changes. When you added this, I did not remove it, rather requested you to move it to a section as it was irrelevant in the human rights section. If I had to edit war, I could have removed it at that time. However, as soon as I added a balancing view, which by the way was in the same interview, you suddenly started | reverting. At this point, this person represents neither the government of pakistan, nor kashmir, nor India. So his statements cannot be used as facts or confessions. I am happy to keep them there, but only in the form he stated. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Confession could be used when we know that what this guy is saying is actually the truth. - Simply wrong. You're not only misinforming you're also saying stupid things. Truth or not, that fact is he admitted to forming militant groups. I don't know what you;re trying to achieve here, okay let's take this up in the page WP:NPOV/N. There, it will more exposure. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WAIT A SECOND: The quoted portion "doesn't question India about the killings of innocent civilians in Kashmir" doesn't even exist in the sources. It was not even an assertion, it was a rhetorical question..He said, "The West blames Pakistan for everything. Nobody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" and that was before he admitted that The Pakistani government formed militant groups. That quoted portion was personal and biased opinion of Killbillbrowser all along. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously???Killbillsbrowser (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gentleman, please pack in the edit warring. You don't seem to be getting anywhere on this page; I can see that both of you have feelings that run high on this issue, and would strongly suggest that you do as suggested and take it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:DRN to get some outside input. If you carry on reverting the article back and forth you're both likely to end up sweating out a block, and no-one wants that. We have processes for resolving disputes like this, please make use of them instead of butting heads. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference
Why was this reference removed by User:Mrt3366. The video is not a copy paste. A live evidence uploaded by Public Broadcasting service Trust of India can be used as a reference. Regarding WP:CITEKILL, kill other references such as news paper reports. I‘m restoring my edit, if there is any thing respond here.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That youtube video by an independent film-maker (or any video for that matter, unless a notable news report) is not a reliable source, especially big claims need solid sources, this isn't one. I can literally add scores of youtube videos in this article I doubt that would be very helpful. Besides, this video may not be talking about Médecins Sans Frontières for all I care. And no, other news paper reports will not be killed because they are reliable sources. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You could take it to WP:RSN if you want. Until it's decided that it is a reliable source and also not a copy-vio, I will suggest you to not re-add it. Thanks, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That means I have to prove the reliablity of this reference, which I did in the Ocean of Tears (the article of its name). I‘m using this reference to the subject matter of its own. And if you can prove it unreliable as well as its article, you are most welcome to remove it.   Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.
 * BTW I noticed you re-entered the source and framed the claims as facts, as opposed to taking it to the WP:RSN first. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * After spendind more than one year in editting and creating article, I know what are the reliable sources. And I didnt oppose to take the ref to WP:RSN as there was no need. If you feel such you take that. And what you have done here you‘ve removed the parameters of quote, the history you provided is “added alleged“ what can be summed up from this.   Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 10:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake in edit summary, big deal. Only conclusion which I can reach is that you feel you've the authority to arbitrarily decide what is and is not the reliable source and that you lack assumption of good faith. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for accepting that mistake, may please restore. I‘ve no authority and am not judging anything, let others to judge. I respect you and everyone, though our views are different but still we are as a family trying to build and reach a conclusion acceptable to everyone. If my approach was wrong I apologise.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 14:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The mistake was in the edit summary not the edit itself. Long quotes are not needed esp. if it's this long. See WP:QUOTEFARM. It might as well be a quote mining without giving the whole scenario. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a THREAT Stop whatever you're doing here Mehrajmir13 (provided in the edit summary).  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 14:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How on earth could that sound like a threat? Don't be so juvenile dear ;). It was simply an advice against your manner of arbitrarily labelling my action as a "mistake" or rather your misconstrual of my comments. Please, stop scrabbling about for excuses to frame this as a dispute. Cheers and Merry Christmas, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Britannica reference
Why are reference from other encyclopaedia used here? Is it not against policy?111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Eg."Muslim revolutionaries in western Kashmir" - sourced from Britannica.com

This by itself does not mean that Wikipedia itself is or is not a branch of Britannica or the Church or CIA or MI6. It is just about standards.

Another source clarifies that the self-styled liberators were supported covertly by Pakistani Army. From this source [from FAQ section]
 * Of the 75 crore to be paid the first installment of Rs. 20 crore was already released. Invasion of Kashmir by self-styled liberators with the covert support of the Pakistani Army took place before the second installment was paid. Government of India decided to withhold it. Lord Mountbatten was of the opinion that it amounted to a violation of the mutually agreed conditions and he brought it to the notice of Gandhiji. To Gandhiji's ethical sense the policy of tit for tat was repugnant and he readily agreed with the Viceroy's point of view.

So mention covert support from Pakistani Army also.111.91.95.40 (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is covert support of Pakistani Army not mentioned yet after secondary sources are mentioned?111.91.95.40 (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Let's resolve the apparently gratuitous dispute civilly. This portion of the content is the core of the dispute, now the question is why not add it to Rape in India or Rape in Jammu and Kashmir after sprucing it up a little for neutrality and call it a day? No? BTW there are a few misconceptions floating around unfettered. I would like to dispel them. Hence I request all of you. Do not edit war. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 04:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) this is not balancing anything.
 * 2) One section is undue since it's just one man's rhetorical query based on personal predilections (not even a proper and credible criticism) against another man.
 * 3) This article is about the conflict, the HRV sections are already in need of a generous trim in order for them to be suitable as a summary section in the parent article.
 * so why does your one man's .... comment not apply to your BBC quote?Killbillsbrowser (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Human rights
These sections are now far to large for this article, the recent additions of a section for rape is just undue. We have articles to cover human rights abuses and rape. Rape in India, Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights violations in Jammu and Kashmir. The HRV sections in this article have to be cut down to just a summary. I will do this in the next few days and would appreciate input from others on the best way to go about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I will go ahead and suggest that they be fundamentally re-written to highlight only the major issues (just the overview) as opposed to the minutiae of specific incidents, let the details be merged to the spin-offs. This article is far too large to be hosting these sections. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree as well with that. However, would have appreciate these undos and reverts when Mrt3366 adds interviews and statements of individuals as well and creates new sections out of it. Not sure why they suddenly do not make this article heavy. Regarding the statement, this is for the first time an indian official, in office, has criticized the army and thus was welcomed by opposition as better late than never. In addition it is not about Rape in India, it is about rape of common people by the military (allegation for Mrt3366, truth for me), which has everything to do with the conflict. But I will also agree that we move all this including these statements and quotes from BBC, Mussharraf, these officials etc. to sub-pages and make this shorter. Till then we should leave all the content in there, so we know what to move to the right pages. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * my suggestion is we create a sandbox page (and sub pages) and get some external help to guide us through this process, given our strong feelings about this subject.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you two are never going to agree, and based on your revert of ever more crap inot the article I figure I will just have to gut it unilaterally. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Killbillsbrowser‘s comments.   Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Allow me to avoid commenting on patently nonsensical and irrelevant allegations because I think they constitute a red herring fallacy. I've reverted multiple undiscussed changes brought forth with an attitude that is antithetical to assumption of good-faith. I am going to talk about them in the following paragraph. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now let's scrutinize them as thoroughly as possible. Hence do not edit war. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This was reverted because blockquoting excessively long quotations clutter the actual article and remove attention from other information (See WP:UNDUE). Also a summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Moreover, longer quotations may be hidden in the reference as a footnote to facilitate verification by other editors without sacrificing readability.
 * 2) This was reverted as per my comments on the previous section and I am not going to repeat them.
 * 3) This was itself a revert of the revert a breach of WP:BRD, I suppose (however, you're no more obliged to follow BRD than I am). Hence, I deemed it necessary to comment here and sort out the issue here. Please discuss.
 * Now to comment on some of the suggestions put forth by KBB,
 * my suggestion is we create a sandbox page (and sub pages) and get some external help to guide us through this process - I strongly oppose that, since that is needlessly time-consuming. Some of us might not have that much enthusiasm or the time to follow through with it.
 * Regarding the statement, this is for the first time an Indian official, in office, has criticized the army and thus was welcomed by opposition as better late than never. - it is irrelevant what you make of it. It is not the first time nor will it be the last. It was not a criticism. Currently the article uses "stating during his tenure", well he didn't "state" anything about it either; it was a rhetorical question that is well within the purview of subjectivity. I implore everybody to check the sources first.
 * In addition it is not about Rape in India, it is about rape of common people by the military - again irrelevant what you make of it. Rape only has two components IMO, first, the perpetrator, and second, the victim. That's it. Do not obfuscate the discussion please.
 * Till then we should leave all the content in there, so we know what to move to the right pages. - you sound like an ideal filibusterer to me, KBB. I am sorry but you do. If you're consciously doing this then please stop your attempts to stonewall improvement basing on your preferences. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop your edits with double standard policy. What you‘ve removed is a quote from "Human rights watch". What about the quote from "BBC". Either restore this edit or remove the quote from "BBC" as well.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But I will also agree that we move all this including these statements and quotes from BBC, Mussharraf, these officials etc. - No, not Musharraf's confessions. He was the army chief and President of Pakistan any direct comments from him will automatiocally be relevant in this article. Besides, it is not only about Human rights Issue. It is about Pakistan's overt involvement in aiding terrorists. Now, Mehrajmir13, that not-so-long BBC quote is a first-hand comment from an eye-witness of the heinous tortures who was interviewed by the reporter of BBC as opposed to lengthy, cherry-picked and pointless quotes from the pages of secondary sources that are not even statements but rhetorical questions. Two don't compare. Same goes for Musharraf's admission. Come on. But even then I don't mind removing the BBC-quote and keeping it in the sub-article, as long as both the sections are re-written from the very beginning (i.e. 3.1 and 3.2). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That means you continue your double standard policy. It leaves me with one choice, reverting your edit.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 06:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it mean that I am continuing to display double-standard esp. when I have given my approval to some of your more stringent demands? Stop your revert-wars and stop misconstruing my comments. Stop your ad hominem attacks. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Fellas, everything there is relevant to this article. But, since there is a whole other separate article covering human rights abuses - we need to provide a brief summary. That means we don't necessarily have to get rid of anything, except maybe some of the more trivial information (if anything on that subject can be called "trivial"). As for what specifically is "trivial", well, all I can do is provide my opinion. Also, keep in mind that we're not really removing anything from Wikipedia at all, we're just moving it. -- Director  ( talk )  07:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Currently the size of the article is beyond the acceptable limit of readable prose size. That means it almost immediately should be divided. IMHO, it would be ideal if the article could be wrapped up inside, now the question is what to leave out. It should be easy to notice that what sections of this article are acting as a magnet for unhelpful contributions (i.e.  and  ). All we are saying is since we already have the spin-off articles and we have almost exactly the same duplicated contents in the spin-off articles of the two Human rights abuses sections, it would be better to just leave them there and — except for the summaries — jettison/merge those contents from this article in order to reduce size. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly the case. Although I will not call them as "trivial" but give consent to the proposal of moving some of the tributary appurtenances that are not so closely related to the core of the conflict here (i.e. only mention the summary of the abuses but move specific incidents along with the details of Human rights abuses to the corresponding article(s)). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 08:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Article Size

Reviewing the human rights section (lets do that and then perhaps move on), I think it should not consist of more than two fair-sized paragraphs (three max). One for general info, and one each for the two areas of Kashmir. Thoughts? -- Director  ( talk )  08:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah but I am awaiting Darkness Shines's opinion on this. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Naturally, everyone's opinion is relevant to the proposed organization. (Mrt3366, please do not alter my talkpage posts in any way whatsoever from now on.) -- Director  ( talk )  09:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Chill dear !! I didn't alter your posts "in any way whatsoever". I simply removed the misplaced outdent that's all as it is really unneeded (you could use od2 for this purpose too). Now I won't do even that. These are all beside the point. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome Direktor. As you have said, a brief summary of HRV is all that is required in this article. Personally I think it could be done in a single paragraph as a lot of that information is duplicated in the sections Indian & Pakistani views. So chop away. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mrt3366, clearly the template was not misplaced if I restored it, while requesting that you cease altering the relevant post (right before you removed it a second time). Unless I am very much mistaken, the title and subject of this thread is the "Human Rights" section. Your switch to a far larger and more complex subject, the size of the entirety of the article, seemed to me to require some sequestration.


 * @Thank you, Darkness Shines. So how do we stand on this, all told? Are there additional participants who might want to voice their opinion on the issue? Frankly I think there's information there for 2 larger or 3 slightly smaller ones. One single paragraph will probably necessitate the exclusion of more than a few individual pieces of information, even in summary form. A brief reference to information already mentioned in the article does not seem imo to be a particular problem. -- Director  ( talk )  10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @DIREKTOR Wrong. Your outdent was misplaced. Your act of restoring it or refusing to accept it doesn't automatically make it valid. Hence, let's just agree to disagree and put this squabble behind us and focus on the core issue here. Unless I am very much mistaken, the title and subject of this thread is the "Human Rights" section. - Are you being sarcastic? If you are then I am not sure I appreciate this. How can you be mistaken when the heading itself is "Human rights"? That said, I didn't switch to a far larger and more complex subject. You're redundantly exaggerating. I simply cited a reason which is only a part of a broader issue in order to trim the two sections. Enough talk, just do it. If you can then let me do it. The reason I am waiting is I don't wish to "gut it unilaterally" as User:Darkness Shines so overtly states. Hence, let's get this over with. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 14:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in my above post that could conceivably be understood as "sarcasm". Just don't edit my talkpage posts, please, and we'll get along fine - or at least don't edit-war with me over my own post. I also recommend you take a break from the "captaincy" of the thread, try not ordering people ("just do it"), moving their posts around, or declaring yourself an authority on whether or not templates are "misplaced".


 * As I'm here to try and help with a dispute, I don't want to do anything without agreement of the participants - and I particularly don't want to waste time and effort only to have it deleted and declared "unsuitable" by you or whomever. Can we please try first to agree on a rough layout? -- Director  ( talk )  15:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * could conceivably be understood as "sarcasm" - don't tell me what can be conceivably understood as what. I also recommend you take a break from the "captaincy" of the thread - And I also recommend you take a break from the habit of condescending. I didn't declare myself as the "authority" or the "captain" as some might like you to believe. Can we please try first to agree on a rough layout? - Where have disagreed with you on that so far? I know some of these guys for quite some time now. You hang around for a few months with these people, face the allegations, deal with their chicaneries, pettifoggery and I guarantee you'll be appearing just as authoritative to others. I am slowly reaching the limits of my patience. Please try to understand, this is not the only place where we have interacted in a not-so-productive manner. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with User:MirajMir's double standards comment. The block quote was added by Mrt3366 himself as a resolution. Now he wants to go back to it and kill it. BBC quote is a first-hand quote of an individual (who could very well be a paid individual), but a report from an organization HRW is dubious.  CBI's unequivocal statement innocent civilians is tad too much for Mrt3366 (and according to him wiki), because he doesn't like it, where as the report clearly says so. The investigation is still going on: Sir, investigation ordered by government via CBI is complete and the report from CBI clearly says what you don't want here, now the military tribunal is acting on the investigation. What will convince me that Mrt3366 is editing in good faith? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

God!! Why not focus on the fucking content? Why take my name in every second sentence that you post here KBB? Why are you commenting on me? How long am I expected to hold off and tolerate this nonsense? who could very well be a paid individual - That is your obnoxious POV-based conjecture. (Don't you see anything beyond your dogmatic beliefs?) What will convince me that Mrt3366 is editing in good faith? - Nothing will convince you, that's it. I just have to deal with you till the time one of us leaves wiki permanently. I am not going to state anything about you any further because that might not seem civil. You're making this personal KBB. Like you've always done. Let's focus on the content and keep our conjectures and sentiments behind. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Section heading is POV?
The heading  is pov? How come? And how is arbitrary removal valid/necessary here? Should we make it ? If we only make it ; it begs the question claims about about what?  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You highlights Musharaf's a claim which you like while he states other claims too. Why we should not mention "Musharaf's claims" that covers everything per WP:NPOV. Please avoid extremeness and bad faith.Justice007 (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He may have claimed a lot of things in his life, yeah, but the reason that renders his comments essential and relevant is his admission. I suggest you first get familiar with WP:NPOV. BTW, I didn't "highlight" anything. "Please avoid extremeness and bad faith." - I am deliberately trying to be polite with you and you on the other hand are calling me a bad-faith editor. Do not edit war. Consider yourself warned. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "I am deliberately trying to be polite with you", please tell me otherwise??. First you must change your authority behaviour with other editors and on every edit you are sending them edit warring notice. Neither you have any ownership and authority nor you are mentor here. I do not think I have to read again NPOV, may you need?, because in the added passage Musharaf also claims "world does not question India about the killings of those people in Kashmir who according to Musharraf are "innocent civilians", why you don't chose to highlight the title of the section from that passage??. Do you think yourself neutral. The title, "Musharaf's claims" covers both passages, and that is neutrality. I ask you very humbly please be a just contributor as others are. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop your false accusation and battle-ground mentality. Like I said he has claimed a lot of things in his life including the claim that "[n]obody asks the Indian prime minister, Why did you arm your country with a nuclear weapon? Why are you killing innocent civilians in Kashmir?" but so what this is not why the section is significant or pertinent. The important core message has got to be that he conceded Pakistan aided the Islamic terrorists and turned a blind eye towards their existence. On the other hand you removed the title and made it less clear and expanded the scope virtually infinitely. Now, I ask why not make the title . It is not a POV to highlight an info that makes the section important in the first place.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about Musharaf's any other claims that are not added in the article, anyhow, are you going to compromise title as "Musharaf claims Pakistan's support for Militants and India kills innocent".Both passages are mentioned.Justice007 (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care, do it then. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, done.Justice007 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * this is not why the section is significant or pertinent. Sorry, Mrt,you want to make this part of the section pertinent. As far as any neutral person is concerned, both claims 'involvement' and 'innocent killing' are equally likely to be pertinent in his interview (if at all someone actually cares about this guy). Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry dear, but context matters. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. If a president of Pakistan says his Pakistani government supported and aided and trained underground militants to fight Indian troops in Kashmir in order to force India to enter negotiations, and If that same president over-simplistically says India is killing absolute innocents by discounting the common hazards there, then I am sorry but the former will carry way more weight of credibility than the latter. Don't just gloss over the distinction between the two created by conflict of Interest, in order to suit your POV. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Relation between Pakistan and Militants
Let's delete/merge the section about Musharraf's claims and create a new section with the following content. I think this content (if needed, after a mild modification) is every bit as relevant and needed in a separate section especially because TWO PAKISTANI HEADS (PRESIDENT Musharraf and Zardari) corroborated the claims:


 * References

Feel free to weigh in or not. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs 5 and 6 are not reliable sources. They are opinionated articles from individuals. Plus, I think this tilts the balance on complicity of pakistan but completely outweights the statement (or claim) that musharaf made in the same breath about India killing innocents. So a section like this is highly unbalanced and thus should not be in the article in this form. I think the section currently is much better after edits from JusticeKillbillsbrowser (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How are they not reliable? One is an academic publisher, the other is written by Adrian Karatnycky and is published by a reputable publishing house. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * a reputable publisher can publish works of fiction as well. Its not the publisher, rather the authenticity of the content and the author that make it reliable. Tomorrow if Brittanica changes publisher to an unknown publisher, it will still be somewhat reliable. They also publish thesis works of people, so cannot be used as vindication for a statement. In any case, the statement about unbalanced still remains valid Killbillsbrowser (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your welcome to try that argument on the RSN board, I suspect it would fail. Both those sources are RS, to say they are not is plain silly. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor jumping in here: Sources by individual authors do pass WP:IRS if they go through an editorial process of fact checking and/or are published by a reputable publisher. There is no generic or blanket policy or guideline stating that "opinionated articles from individuals" are no reliable sources at all.--v/r - TP 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * agreed. how does one check in this case that they have in fact gone through an editorial process of fact checking? Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For example, in Chhattisgarh in India's Northeast, Maoist insurgents reportedly increased their recruitment of children when violence increased in 2005. Some of these recruits were as young as 14 and 15 years of age (CITE). Prior to taking power in Nepal, Maoists also relied on children to fill their armed ranks (CITE). Although Indian government denies recruiting children at all, Human rights watch (CITE) contends that children were being used by police and government as spies, informants, messengers and the like in that corner of the subcontinent. Similarly, children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs. Several boys been killed in individual clashes with police or security forces while acting in this capacity. In these conflict areas also it is reported that children have been recruited by state-backed anti-insurgency forces with the full knowledge of Indian authorities..
 * This is the exact text from Pg 106. Now what is interesting here is that the authors mention the use of children by India duly quoted with a citation (wherever it says 'CITE'). However, the statement about militants has absolutely no citation in this book. This is just a sentence, no citation after that. So, I don't know how to interpret this. A personal opinion of these authors? Or can be added to wiki (even they say 'reported' in this case, but use 'contend' in the other case - or i may be just reading too much into it). Would appreciate inputs Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And about the other citation it clearly mentions that Kashmiri journalists have been pressured by both the Indian government and the militant groups to suppress information about human rights abuses........ Nowhere does it mention that these militants are trained by Pakistan or are Pakistan based groups, so clearly this reference is invalid for the purpose that Mrt is trying to put in here Killbillsbrowser (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The source states Similarly, children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs. and is used to support the claim "Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups have also been accuse of using children as young as 10 to act as messengers and spy's. They have also use children to throw grenades at security forces and to plant explosive devices." what is the problem I don't understand. KBB please admit that you simply want to censor this information from going in by hook or by crook. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since KBB didn't take the sources to WP:RSN I take it that these are reliable enough for his taste and I am free to include the content in the article? And then maybe we can take it from there? I will wait for a few more hours and then carry it out, albeit how on earth could one still object to these well-backed inclusions is really beyond me. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 11:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A claim like that is pretty strong, it should be well sourced with multiple references.--v/r - TP 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, two Pakistani presidents have corroborated these exact claims in different Interviews, I think that counts for something and besides, if you search there is no shortage of sources. It would however help me exactly what claim do you want backed by more sources. Thank you. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are either not reading properly or conveniently ignoring what I wrote. I said ref 6 (about journalists) never mentions pakistan and yet you are responding with statement (that I copied) from ref 5 about children. So, it is your extrapolation that you are tying it to pakistan. Ref 5 (about children) does say pakistan and I did not question that. However, I clearly said that about Indian government using children, the book (you cited) is citing primary sources (thus stronger) where as for the statement that you are emphasizing, it has no primary source in this book, so how do you compare those two, this was a question and clarification that i asked. read my post carefully.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tparis, see the following Pakistan Reportedly Aiding Kashmir Rebels -- Despite Assurances To U.S., Military Fueling India Conflict. Washington Post, The Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate's Sponsorship of Terrorism (Throughout the 1990s, the ISI maintained its relationship with extremist networks and militants that it had established during the Afghan war to utilize in its campaign against Indian forces in Kashmir.), Why Pakistan is 'boosting Kashmir militants', Links between ISI, militant groups: Straw (The British government has said there is a 'clear link' between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and three major militant outfits, Lashkar-e-Tayiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen operating in Jammu and Kashmir.), Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI ] (The ISI supplies weapons, training, advice and planning assistance to terrorists in Punjab and Kashmir, as well as the separatist movements in the Northeast frontier areas of India.), The ISI and Terrorism: Behind the Accusations → Supporting Terrorism? and There are more.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But I haven't seen anything to suggest that ISI has the sanction or has been given the role to get involved in these things. from the first reference from Mrt. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, C'mon Bill, it is well established the the ISI support terrorists. I va ngive you hundreds of academic sources for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * and it is also well established that India has committed gross state-sponsored human rights violations, including organized rapes, murders, staged encounters, extra-judicial killings, torture etc. in Kashmir. I can give you hundreds of academic sources for that as well Killbillsbrowser (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So can I, in fact I wrote and article or two about it. This discussion is about ISI support for terrorists, do you deny there are plenty of sources for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * are we talking about terrorists in general or in Kashmir? I have come across many articles about ISI support for terrorists in Pak/Afghanistan etc., but not so much in Kashmir. In fact I also came across some articles that claimed CIA supported Pak-trained terrorists against Russia during cold war. Disclaimer: But me not coming across them doesn't mean such articles may not existKillbillsbrowser (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not bandy words about what Indian Forces do in Kashmir for that we have two articles Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir or Human rights abuses in Kashmir and we can take that discussion up there, not here since this is not about human rights abuses. I've provided the arguments along with the sources some of which confirm that ISI is aiding Militants and some say Pakistani authorities in general help them. Two Pakistani Presidents have admitted that much what is your problem? Don't divert the issue. Don't digress. This is getting too much. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 04:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some more about this issue:


 * references

Feel free to comment on it or suggest any improvements. Thank you all. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reckless Rollbacks from Mrt3366
You have recklessly bullied editors by your rollback rights in the recent past. The most recent one, you rolled back to your own old edit, killing everything in between by myself, from User:Darkness Shine and MirajMir while only providing explanation in the edit for edit warring from User:MirajMir. This is atrocious. I am looking for avenues and collecting the other evidence to report. Meanwhile, you are requested to stop. Killbillsbrowser (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For the third time in few hours, I think that excessively lengthy quote could be improved and shortened to save space by paraphrasing especially because it is not as rare as a first-hand eye-witness's recountal. It is merely a copy from the HRW page. See WP:QUOTEFARM. And BTW I didn't use rollback, I used edit summaries while reverting stop maligning me this way. It's redundant and irrelevant here. Also constant belly-aching about how I am bullish is getting too much for me. I am humbly asking you to stop this behavior as it's not seeming polite. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda involvement
Nobody thinks they have been involved in the dispute, yet we have a huge section devoted to this, I propose we remove it and add a line or two to a section on militancy in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't remove the content. I think that section - at the most - might be trimmed a bit. But the contents are valuable and well-sourced. Moreover, if nobody believed that Al-qaeeda was involved we would not have had the RSs talking/speculating about it. If anything we must depict what the sources are telling us. We as editors are in no position to pick and choose what is believed by people till there is a reliable source backing the claim. The concern is notable and suitably sourced, so keep it. Now if you want to argue that the sources are not reliable, then you might take them to RSN. For me it's simple: if there is no reliable source: delete the content. If there are two reliable sources backing claims that are contesting each other: state both neutrally. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of RS. The section starts with talk of Al-Qaeda involvement. The rest of the section is devoted to saying, well no their not involved at all. So my suggestion is a section on militancy in the region (see you section above which would also go into such a section) and have a few lines or a paragraph at most on this non event. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "the section is devoted to saying, well no their not involved at all" - maybe I'm not reading it as you are, but I think it's not exactly same as saying that they are not involved at all. The section has multiple statements that imply a close connection between Al-Qaeda and Kashmir. I am in favor of two sections. No, actually I am not so much against removal of the section "Al-Qaeda involvement" as I am against a vague name of the section which will be inevitably needed to accommodate the contents of this section. My primary objection is that should we choose as broad a section heading as "militancy" it would be undue. I apprehend, basing upon my experience dealing with these articles, that all sorts of random gibberish and unreliable speculations about non-notable incidents and misrepresentation of sources will be inserted to blur these Presidents' overt and radical admissions. Make no mistake, we won't be able to keep this article in a perennially protected mode nor will we be able to take part in all the discussions. I think there has got to be a more specific section name that indicates — to put it quite bluntly — how Pakistani government is using terrorist organizations to fight Indian troops and also in order to frame Indian side of Kashmir as a turmoil-laden land. Which Two Pakistani Presidents have already admitted on two separate occasions. I hope I am clear enough. We must present the viewpoints fairly in proportion to their representation in reliable sources. Yes, if Indian presidents and all other reliable intelligence organizations start accepting that India is using terrorism to fight proxy wars in Pakistani-Kashmir, I will accept another section with a heading "Relation between Indian and Militants". Till then I am against any step that requires a blurry name of the section. Thank you. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TERRORIST we cannot use terrorist in a section heading, only in content when attributed. As such such a section needs to be called Militant actions or similar. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * DS I would have to say Al Qaeda issue is an important one and we should keep the section. At one time AQ was the premier jihadist organization of the world and ANY involvement in this conflict is inherently notable IMO. Our friends from across the border have always tried to portray kashmir militancy as a justified indigenous uprising rather than an Islamist one.    for a while US believed that AQ was fomenting trouble in Kashmir and trying to provoke war in order to relieve pressure on Taliban in FATA and Afghanistan.  Plus Ideologically AQ has been supporting Kashmir separatists all along. At one british special forces were hunting for OBL in Indian kashmir.  i also found it very fascinating that OBL was finally killed in abbottabad which is a stones throw from LOC--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikireader41, I agree with your comments. Al-qaeda has got every reason to be active there. There isn't a reason why they shouldn't. DS, I am not asking you to use the word "terrorist" in the heading, am I? Where did you get that impression from? I am simply asking you to create one section dedicated to disseminate information about Pakistan's involvement with the terrorists to pursue disingenuous geo-strategic agenda in Indian-administered Kashmir. In future we might add another section about India's usage of militants if enough number of neutral and credible sources (without apparent COI) state it explicitly. Now, we all know that there are sources which assume the camaraderie-based connection between Pakistani Government and heinous Militants is a fait accompli. All I am saying is that we must not gloss over the difference. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct links found for some external dead links.
I have found some dead links on this page but don't have sufficient permissions to edit this page. So I'm suggesting the correct links for these dead links. Someone with the necessary permissions should make the edit.
 * Timeline since April 2003: India-Pakistan Peace Process since April 2003
 * Zardari expects world to come up with $100bn,Dawn (newspaper): Zardari expects world to come up with $100bn
 * Revised Statute from The UK Statute Law Database: Indian Independence Act 1947 (c.30) : Indian Independence Act 1947
 * Kashmir policy: an overview by Shamshad Ahmad, Dawn 2004-08-05 : Kashmir policy: an overview
 * Congress wants Pakistan declared terror state, Dawn, 2009-02-08 : Congress wants Pakistan declared terror state

Dalilida (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I personally thank you and will carry out your proposed edit asap. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 04:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ it. Hope it is alright. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 05:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Covert support of Pakistani army to infiltration
Please add covert support to barbaric infiltrators by Pakistany Army. Otherwise this will be a biased and worthless article.111.91.75.72 (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to prune both the Human rights sections
This proposal is to prune anything excess of a succinct summary from the Human rights sections and to merge the rest with direct spin-out articles (e.g. Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, etc) of the sections. Our guideline says:

A rule of thumb Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages: > 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided  > 60 kB Probably should be divided

The article size currently needs a generous trim and that   alone is over   in size. If I am not rebutted within a few days I will humbly take it that I have others' tacit approval, albeit I would personally like to get active support on this. All I'm saying is since we already have the spin-out articles and we have almost exactly the same contents duplicated in the spin-outs, let's remove the contents from this bulky article which now takes too long to load on slow connections (trust me I have tried and failed to load!). Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 06:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * agree. sounds like a good idea.  I will help out as time permits.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Altaf Ahmad's Quote
In the lead of the article I came across this quotation "'The whole of Kashmir nation is standing against these elections, because these elections are not as India claims in the United Nations, that people of Kashmir are representing themselves in these elections, that this is the self determination,'". Now I have a few questions.


 * 1) Are the people of kashmir standing against these elections by participating in them or are they standing against the impression created by the government of India in the UN?
 * 2) Who exactly is Altaf Ahmed? There is nothing in Wikipedia about him and I don't find much mention in Google. Why do we have his comment in the lead of this article?
 * 3) Are there kashmiri activists with a better command of english out there?
 * 4) Why have the comments of the chief minister of Kashmir not been added to the lead that even he does not suport the idea of self rule and prefers greater autonomy for the people of Kashmir ? --Wikishagnik (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. That man's personal inference is undue and redundant longquote. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The source also says
 * The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), led by pro-independence Yaseen Malik, has rejected the suggestion. Omar Abdullah, heading the National Conference, has pooh-poohed the suggestion as of no use, saying his party does not want to go beyond its demand for greater autonomy. Panun Kashmir, a frontline organisation of Kashmiri Hindu Pandits, has also rejected the ‘self-rule’ and ‘demilitarization’ proposal. It has, inter alia suggested ‘internal reorganisation’ of Jammu and Kashmir, under which, the state is to be divided into four parts, including the ‘union territory of Panun Kashmir’ in the Kashmir valley.
 * That's all. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of Kashmir Conflict
This is definitely a way better written article than the Timeline of Kashmir Conflict. Anyway that the two articles could be merged and have the POV problems on the Timeline article cleaned up?142.59.203.143 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123

Afzal Guru
the hanging of Afzal Guru and the ensuing protests should be under recent developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.77.95 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Let's discuss these changes first.Diff Thank you, Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can wait until you look over it. I saw that there was a lot of really disorganized discussion in the lead so I've been trying to re-work it. I found it really hard to get a grasp of the conflict through what I found there. I would like to add some information here about the main ongoing onflict in Kashmir which is the Kashmiri Insurgency. It is part of this conflict but this page preents the Kashmiri Insurgency in a way that makes it seem like the two are completely separate things or worse that the Insurgency doesn't even exist despite the fact that it's the current form of this conflict.Wareditor2013 (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, kindly hold your edits on the article for a while and have patience, please list some of the more important changes on this page. We can discuss and include them later. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You said, "I would like to add some information here about the main ongoing conflict in Kashmir which is the Kashmiri Insurgency." - I understand that but current section on the insurgency is already bulky. Perhaps you'd be interested in Human rights abuses in Kashmir instead? Now, if you want to write about internal insurgency then I would suggest you visit the page Human rights abuses in Kashmir and develop that page further, thank you. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of the changes I think need to be made: 1) Lead should give a brief overview of the conflict and not bring up minutia points (e.g. the exact percentages of Indian claimed regions held by whom), I usually refer to the Wikipedia on leads when thinking about these. There it says, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" I don't think this lead really follow this because it's not concise, he does a poor job of defining the topic and it does a very bad job of quickly listing the important points. that's mainly why I want to edit it. 2) A gramatical point about different topics in different paragraphs: E.g. elections, peace talks and refugee and deaths don't all belong in the same paragraph. 3) The article more broadly seems to suffer from a pro-Indian POV. I see this in the way that it often presents the Indian Government's prosition infront of thers and doesn't attempt to give evidence from a 3rd part of neutral POV 4) Last but not least is the real lack of discussion that is given to the  Kashmiri Insurgency which as I mentioned above is the real ongoing part of this conflict. Please let me know what you think. If you're ok with it, I wouldn't mind completing my edits and then you can go over them with me. Then if you have any problems with it we can discuss them and then make changes (reverts) as needed.Wareditor2013 (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2013
Senior Congress leader and member of its Central Working Committee, Makhan Lal Fotedar, in a statement blamed NC President and former chief minister Farooq Abdullah for rigging the 1987 elections. []

63.87.61.76 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now:: Your request is in the form of "Please change X" whereas it should be in the form of "Please change X to Y". Kindly make the necessary changes before we discuss the possibility of editing the page. Thank you. Regards. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit protect
Done Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Plese add the following to the Article:See also section. 98.23.53.199 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Media:Kashmir conflict disputed territory animation.png|Animated PNG of disputed regions]] (displays as static image in some web browsers)

Respect WP neutrality
As per Pakistanis and Kashmiris they are Freedom Fighters. As per India they are terrorist. But as per WP neutrality they are Separatists. Please respect WP neutrality and do not try to impose hate propaganda here. Miosong (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Sock of LanguageXpert ‎
 * This was discussed previously, as none of the groups are in fact separatist we use militant. Consensus is needed for a change such as that. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Being separatist defines their political cause and "militant" defines the way they are pursuing it. So these two are different things. -- S M S   Talk 09:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.39.32.60.220 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of you friends. One of whome pretend to be Pakistani and Other as Indian are both in fact from India. Indian Govt Point of view is terrorist. Kashmiris and Pakistanis call them Freedom Fighters and Huriyat Pasand so. Being Neutral WP will use a decent word as separatists. 39.32.60.220 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC) IP sock of LanguageXpert ‎
 * Na, we will not. What with you being a sock and all. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ya we will. Separatist fits in the Neutral point of view. Have a look on the expendable Kashmiri.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This was what i wanted to show the world that indian WP editors are biased and do not have any valid arguments that is why they run with lame excuses such as Sock sock sock as a class 2 kid. WP is neutral but few non sense indian editors and administrators are manipulating it. Kashmir is filled with 6 million terrorist indian Army but we have big heart so we never put such things on wikipedia. we support neutrality that is why our claim is to neither use militant nor Freedom fighters instead use separatists to show the world that WP is neutral and unbiased to any nation.39.32.100.3 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC) IP sock of LanguageXpert ‎
 * No, we will not. We do not call terrorist groups who are waging a proxy war for Pakistan separatists. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They‘re terrorists for India who occupied their land, for their homeland they‘re called freedom fighters.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 02:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are terrorists worldwide, or do you think LeT are not terrorists? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We‘re not talking about Let, Al Qaida or Taliban, we are talking about the separatists of Kashmir.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 15:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Which just proves you have not even looked at the socks edits which you are now commenting on. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Edits by biharis. No, I‘ve looked at them as well; why don‘t they reflect the fact from the NPoV.   Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 18:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Darkeness shine why you removed my comments from talk page. I think you do not have any answer to my questions so you better decided to remove them so that you can run from valid answers. please respect WP rules and never manipulate talk page because it is not your personal face book pageOnlycensusfigures (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Sock of LanguageXpert ‎

I restored your comments which DS had removed without any reason or summary.  Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed them because the editor is a sockpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a talk page. Everyone has a right to comment so do you. Do not remove again. Mehra j Mir  (Talk) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sockpuppets do not get to edit any pages, at all. Stop restoring sockpuppet comments. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
Please remove the commas from the sentence "India claims these insurgents are Islamic terrorist groups from Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan, fighting to make Jammu and Kashmir, a part of Pakistan." They are grammatically incorrect. This sentence is the first in second paragraph of the "1989 popular insurgency and militancy" section under the Timeline heading.

Rglaudell (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Minor edit only. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
Please remove the commas from the sentence "In October 2008, President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called the Kashmir separatists, terrorists in an interview with The Wall Street Journal." It is grammatically incorrect. This sentence is in the third paragraph of the "1989 popular insurgency and militancy" section under the Timeline heading.

Rglaudell (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I have removed the second comma; the sentence is grammatically correct with or without the first comma. Minor edit only. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 23:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2014
Please change "Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNCIP)" to "Following the set-up of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)." This inaccurate initialism is under the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 heading in the Timeline section. One can follow the link to the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan to confirm the abbreviation as UNMOGIP. The UNCIP created the UNMOGIP.

Rglaudell (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I actually changed the text to "Following the set-up of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP)" as it seems the UNMOGIP was not created until 1951  Cannolis (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Casualty Figures
Can we get reliable casualty figures ? This source gives the following break down, Militants: 22779, Civilians: 14680 and Security Personnel: 6106, for a total of 43565 (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/annual_casualties.htm). But the info box currently claims that just the number of civilians killed was about 40000. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A problem in the section Early History
Hi all, I have a problem in this section with the statement An interesting and true account of Kashmiri History is also available at the main article History of Kashmir. Firstly, this main article is already quoted at the beginning of the section so does not need to be mentioned again, unless their is some kind of promotion (WP:PROMO) going on. Plus, I assume that all articles on Wikipedia meets verifiability (WP:VERIFY) standards, so we don't have to be told that the article is true. Can we remove this statement? Any opinions? --Wikishagnik (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Removed. Thanks for spotting that. -- AmritasyaPutra T 11:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"Scholarly" References
Could some one explain me how a part-time journalist and an opinion piece amount to scholarly reference about a topic so big. I hope Ehasbrouck could throw some light on it....  ƬheStrike  Σagle   16:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to engage in what I presume is likely to be a fight over how Wikipedia portrays the unquestionably controversial issue of Kashmir.

But I noticed that an important *issue* was missing from this page. I tried to add a minimal pointer to the issue, simply to alert Wikipedia readers to the fact that this is regarded by many people as an issue, without expressing any opinion on the underlying facts. That's why I worded it as "Some people believe...". Some people might dispute the validity of this belief, but I don't think there is any real question that such a belief is widely held.

So much of the discussion of Kashmir has become so intricate, and so removed into meta-discussion and exegesis of decades of voluminous prior literature, that it is hard to find anything about the issue by an expert that bothers to mention the fundamentals. The fundamental issues as they are seen by the masses are clearer in the demands and marching chants and leaflets of political organizations, but I presume that these would not be welcomed as sources by Wikipedia, even as sources about what people perceive the issues to be.

I cited two sources as evidence that such a belief is widely-held among those observing, commenting on, and analyzing the issue: (1) the text of a talk I was invited to give (as a professional travel journalist and professional human rights activist, someone knowledgeable and with a perspective that is a significant part of the debate, and thus one important to include in that symposium as it is for Wikipedia) at an Ivy League university symposium co-sponsored by multiple academic departments and organizations, first published on my personal Website (self-published articles on which have won awards for investigative journalism in a contest juried by journalism-school faculty) and also reprinted by a significant activist organization representative of widespread opinion among Kashmiris; and (2) a widely read and influential essay by a leading Indian scholar and expert on human rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Balagopal) first published in a leading Indian scholarly journal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Political_Weekly) and reprinted as part of a "Festschrift" in his honor, reflecting the significance widely ascribed by other academics and human rights experts to both the author and the article. If the fact that a point of view is being put forward in EPW and reprinted posthumously in such an online Festschrift to keep it and make it more widely available isn't evidence that it is part of the terms of serious intellectual debate in India -- regardless of whether it is universally agreed with -- I don't know what source would better serve that purpose. Ehasbrouck (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Kashmir as dangerous zone
Title doesn't seem to be neutral. I am not sure if it deserves separate section, it can be merged to any other.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind where it ends up or under what section heading. The key objective is to include Clinton and Sharif's involvement and the "most dangerous place" comment. Philg88 ♦talk 08:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional problems before plebiscite
Thanks for adding sources. However there is significant distance between what the sources say and what your text says here. Your text involves "synthesis," a concept you need to understand and avoid. You cannot also report what a lone politician says as a statement of fact. It has to be attributed to that source via an inline attribution. But it won't have any weight. You really need a Constitutional lawyer to say that in order to have a proper weight.

I am quite sceptical of your whole project because the Indian Constitution was passed and the J&K Constituent Assembly was formed when India was negotiating with UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and India assured the UN body that the Indian Constitution does not stand in the way of holding a plebiscite. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir as danger zone
I'm in support of shifting matter of this section in article to another section. Just 4-5 months ago there was a short discussion between and admin  "read here in old archive talk page", where they agreed to shift that matter to another section. There is a sub-section named US President Obama on the Conflict, we can rename it as US Presidents' views on the Conflict and can add Clinton's remark there. Also any sourced material related to views of other former US Presidents on Kashmir conflict can be added there.-- Human 3015  22:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's better.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds eminently sensible. Philg88 ♦talk 06:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

CM said
I have re-added the CM of J&K's statement with reference in his own words. I think that I made it neutral enough, and thus as the story got extensive coverage, the statement of the CM of an Indian administered state should have a place there. Faizan (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Faizan, The IP you are supporting has been referred to WP:NOTNEWS. The same applies to you. This is just day to day politics, nothing of encyclopedic value, least of all in the lead of an article that covers 70 years of history! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kautilya, how does NOTNEWS apply here? I am not supporting any IP, but I think that likewise the reports of European Union regarding the turnout, the reported relevant statement of the CM can get a place there too. Faizan (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you are supporting this IP . I have no idea whether this is the same IP that first inserted this text . But he/she has been told that, for a news item to get inserted into Wikipedia, it should have enduring notability . You have again reinserted the text without bothering to address the issue. Is this of enduring notability in an article that covers 70 years of history? The WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Faizan, it is covered by notnews. Mufti said it because Pakistan supported militants not done any blast during elections, why you are writing such insignificant thing in lead? This article is not about elections in Jammu and Kashmir, its about Kashmir conflict.-- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Moreover, views of EU and UN matters, these are international organazations, some random comments by local politician for sake of politics dose not deserve place in lead. Kashmir conflict is all about views of International standard organazations. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!!  • 07:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We can also see that IP is requesting Faizan for "help" . I think Faizan is "hopeful of adminship", I saw his name in "hopeful admins" list, but his behaviour is like an IP adress. How one can add a random quote in lead? Former Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said numerous anti Pakistani statements regarding terrorism when he was acting CM, should we add it? PM Modi also said many such statements, should we quote it in lead? In real sense Mufti's statement is also anti-Pakistan, he is thanking militants and Pakistan, he put Pakistan in category of militants. He is indirectly saying that peace in the region is depends on Pakistan, if Pakistan allows everything to happen properly without doing any attack then peace will restore in region. His statement is more like sarcastic statement. But in any case it don't deserve place in lead. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 07:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of Aksai Chin and Azad Kashmir in this page
This article name is Kashmir conflict, Regions of former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir which are now administered by India, Pakistan and China are under the scope of this article, but this article largely contains issues related to only Indian administered side, where are more details regarding Human rights issues or elections in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan? We all should try to improve this article, obviously I will give most contribution from reliable sources but still others should also involve in this issue. ,, ,. There are tonnes of other reliable sources. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 12:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Why lead should only contain info regarding human rights issues and elections in Indian Kashmir? why can't we add such info regarding Pakistani Kashmir too? Because both are equally disputed. I will add info regarding elections and Human rights issues in Pakistani Kashmir in lead soon, little bit busy these days. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 13:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a valid argument. Kashmir conflict should also include Azad Kashmir and Aksai Chin.  Cosmic   Emperor  14:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Askai Chin are automatically included in the conflict. Aren't they included in the article yet? Faizan (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputed para in the lead removed. Wait for Dispute resolution committee decision
Disputed para in the lead is

"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.[19][20][21][22] European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.[23][24][25] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[23]

It was observed and caused dispute among users so it should be removed until Dispute resolution committee's decision. It is unethical to maintain disputed para for weeks over weeks. It was already on page since last ten days to deceive article visitors because its neutrality is seriously questioned and same has been accepted by dispute resolution committee for investigation.Whistle blowing is encouraged world wide so whistle blowers opinion should be respected here. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * can you be more prcise who disputed it and with whom and what is really disputed here ? before making major surgery Shrikanthv (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Read election 2014 section on this talk page above plus Human 3015 better you focus on dispute resolution of disputed para removed and dont try to indimidate me on my talk page in the name of 3 revert rule. Proof your POV push on dispute resolution page and stop playing childish. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Shrikanthv it was already explained to you in this Talk page to do not edit war let resolution come. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * what a shame if no one respect WP dispute resolution mechanism. Disputed para reinstated and protected unethically days over days. Justice being delayed. Are these WP standards of neutrality. what a shame for such so called un biased admins 39.47.184.157 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , feeling bad for you, but if you revert 4 different users then page will obviously get protected, it is wrong thinking by you that admins endorses current version or they are biased, admin protected page just to stop edit warring, nothing else. We should keep pre-dispute version till dispute resolves because this version is there since months and it is relevant and well sourced. -- Human 3015  Call me maybe!! • 17:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

25 years of AFSPA
I added this from Amnesty international 30 june 2015 report on kashmir https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&type=revision&diff=669877951&oldid=669854640 but user Kestwol called it nonconstructive. Removal of sourced content restored. Recent Amnesty report on completion of 25 years of armed forces special act is all about kashmir conflict hence no reason for calling it nonconstructive and edit warring. 39.47.134.197 (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Content dispute
Please some one read the reference before playing undo button case example of non constructive edits by user kestwol. 39.47.134.197 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the IP violated WP:3RR. He has been repeatedly adding POV content and edit-warring against multiple users. Khestwol (talk) 10:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So you more focused on trapping others in WP:3RR then WP RS content and WP good faith editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.134.197 (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Free food and liquor making youth to join army in kashmir
There is a growing voice against Indian youth joining army for free food family holidays and liquor for which Andhara Pardesh MP P Ravindra Babu also raised voice but he was then booked by Bihar high court stated times of india.

I included this but one user objected so i thought let us talk on its inclusion. 39.47.134.197 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , This is my first and last comment regarding this issue. This can't be included, no one will agree on this, so please leave this issue, it is not related to Kashmir conflict. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 09:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this has nothing to do with Kashmir conflict. It is WP:COATRACK and poor quality sourcing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But majority of Indian army is deployed in Kashmir or Pakistan border due to Kashmir conflict with Pakistan so it is relevant. 39.47.134.197 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)