Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

POVfork of Chittisinghpura massacre. Might run afoul of WP:SOAPBOX. The article itself is poorly written and full of POV. Chittisinghpura massacre was subject to vandalism sometime ago with SPA's trying to turn the article into platform for blame against the Indian Government. This article seems to be doing the same thing. References are outdated. vi5in [talk] 20:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Edited the article and merged all relevant information from Chittisinghpura massacre.
 * Chittisinghpura massacre was filled with inflammatory language, and contained numerous factual errors that were not substantiated by its sources. For instance, the article claimed that the Pakistan Rangers trained alleged militant Suhail Malik, when in fact the quoted source clearly states that he claimed to have been trained by Lashkar-e-Tayyiba.  Such errors have been cleared and all additional information has been included.


 * Furthermore, Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres contains far more information on the aftermath of the massacre, including killings by security forces, and the Indian government's attempt at covering up subsequent killings by tampering with DNA. All such arguments are fully referenced with Indian and international sources.Kabuli (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The attacks were quite notable. POV might need to be cleaned up but the article can be salvaged. NoVomit (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No one's saying it's not notable, but this is a POVfork - perhaps it could be redirected to Chittisinghpura massacre. -- vi5in [talk] 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I've already pointed out, Chittisinghpura massacre has glaring POV issues, to the point where it includes a number of factually incorrect statements that contradict the very sources it quotes. Even after Vivin's attempt at making the article more palatable, I see that the section on the "Clinton controversy" still claims that the publishers issued a public apology, when the given reference makes it clear that the statement is from an email to the Times News Network.  It also claims that the US government ultimately accepted India's explanation (that Pakistani militants were responsible), when the given reference makes no such claims. And again, Chittisinghpura massacre lacks any information about the inextricably related, subsequent killings committed by Indian armed forces, or the DNA-tampering scandal, and in fact, any references to these incidents have been deleted vigilantly according to this history page...including them in the article title will help prevent future editors from doing the same. All the relevant information from Chittisinghpura massacre has already been incorporated into the more complete Chattisinghpora, Pathribal, and Barakpora massacres article.Kabuli (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed the sentence which says that the US Government accepted the Indian version of events. I still feel that this current article obliquely tries to implicate the Indian Government in a number of things and as a result is far from objective. -- vi5in [talk] 23:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You've repeatedly failed to provide even a single specific example of POV, or any other issues with the current article. Meanwhile, despite your efforts to edit it, Chittisinghpura massacre still lacks any reference to the subsequent killings at Pathribal and Barakpora, and the Indian government's DNA cover-up, all of which are inextricably linked to the original incident.  The article literally ignores all of the undisputed events that cast the Indian government in an unfavorable light...a pretty glaring POV issue.  Moreover, even with all your editing, Chittisinghpura massacre remains riddled with factual errors (the authors didn't even get the village's location right).  The current article is quite frankly better written.Kabuli (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I've been busy with the holiday season. Here are a few issues with the article:
 * "A unit of Indian paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles stationed nearby failed to intervene during the attack." - uncited
 * "Local observers and political activists doubted the Indian government's official reports however, pointing out that if there had been a gunfight, some of the security force personnel would have sustained injuries - but none were injured. Over the following days, local villagers began to protest, claiming that the men were ordinary civilians who had been killed in a fake encounter, not "foreign militants." According to them, up to 17 men had been detained by the police and "disappeared" between March 21-24. On March 30, local authorities in Anantnag relented to growing public pressure, and agreed to exhume the bodies and conduct an investigation into the deaths." - completely uncited.
 * "The parties responsible for the initial massacre at Chattisinghpora remain unidentified - various theories have been put forward accusing both Pakistani Islamist militants, and Indian security forces" - POV. According to whom? Who says that they were Indian Security forces?
 * WP:UNDUE and cherrypicking of facts. I notice that the (outdated) Amnesty International report hasn't been used to say that Indian Security forces weren't involved (2nd section, 8th para). In a direct contradiction, the article claims (as I have pointed out above) that it is not known who was behind the attacks and that it could have been Indian security forces. This is definitely POV and a direct misrepresentation of facts.
 * The article cites the "International Human Rights Organization" which is a completely partisan pro-Khalistani organization that has nothing to do with Internatoinal Human rights.
 * Information about the Pathribal attacks and DNA tampering can be merged into the main article. But the article as it stands is a blatant POVfork that cherrypicks and misrepresents facts. I fail to see how it can even marginally be considered "better written". -- vi5in [talk] 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' The statements you mention are all taken from the Amnesty International report - appropriate citations have been added.


 * In regards to the Rashtriya Rifles, the AI report states: "A unit of paramilitary Rashtriya Rifles (RR) stationed close to the village failed to intervene and only visited the place of the incident on the following morning."


 * In regards to doubts about the Indian governments official reports, AI states: "Local observers, however, disbelieved the official account; they pointed out that if armed men hidden in a hut on a hilltop had indeed been involved in a gunfight as claimed by the authorities, they would have injured some of the security force personnel attacking them from the valley - but none was injured...On the following days, local people held protest demonstrations claiming that the dead men were ordinary civilians, labourers or petty traders, from the villages Braringam, Mominabad and Halam who had nothing to do with militant activities or the killing of the Sikhs on 20 March. There were rumours that altogether 17 men had been picked up and 'disappeared'. Demonstrators have claimed that the five men the authorities claimed had been killed in the hut were ordinary villagers who had in fact been picked up by the Special Task Force under the Senior Superintendent of Police of Anantnag between 21 and 24 March and had gone missing since. In at least one case, a First Information Report (FIR)(15) had reportedly been filed about the 'disappearance'."


 * As for the final point, the article has been edited to reflect the AI report's suspicion that Indian government sponsored counter-militants (referred to as "renegades" in the report) may have been responsible.


 * Finally, considering the fact that you're so desperately trying to defend Chittisinghpura massacre, an article that so blatantly cherrypicks facts that its ignored (and has repeatedly been purged of any references to) ANY of the confirmed, undisputed incidents that cast the Indian armed forces in a negative light, I really wouldn't bring up the issue of "misrepresenting facts".Kabuli (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand. The article quotes information as fact, when it's more of a statement of opinion from involved parties. This is a clear example of POV. The Amnesty International hasn't stated it, some of the villagers are of the opinion that Indian security forces are involved. If you've got references, add them. You asked me to find out problems with the article, and I did. Say that the original article cherrypicks facts doesn't change the fact that this article is completely POV. We're not playing "I know what I am, but what are you?" here. I never wrote the original article; my involvement with the article was regarding the addition of clearly outdated information. Like I mentioned before, you're welcome to add new information to the article, as long as it's cited (especially regarding the related incidents and DNA tampering). But the article as it stands is obviously POV, and I'm sorry to say, with respect to your edits, your POV is more than evident. You have also conveniently ignored the fact that the Amnesty International report doesn't say that the Indian Government was involved. In fact, they think otherwise. Like I said before, this page should be deleted, but the salvageable information should be moved in to the original article. -- vi5in [talk] 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - tendentious article with dubious and outdated sources. Most quoted text is partisan or WP:FRINGE/Unreliable Sources justified through victimology-porn and political correctness.Ontopofcosts (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Aftermath sections, as postulated by Kabuli and others need not be forked to create new pages to turn Wikipedia in to a soapbox. These pages serve as little more than glorified POV forks.Pectoretalk 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Nowhere does the article state as fact that the Indian government was responsible for the events at Chattisinghpora. It points out the difference of opinion that exists, and clearly goes through the Indian government's claims of Lashkar involvement, including essentially the same information and evidence presented in Chittisinghpura massacre. As for the related killings and DNA cover-up, cases in which no one disputes the Indian government's clear culpability, all statements are fully referenced with human rights reports and BBC news stories. Finally, considering the fact that proponents of deleting the current article are presenting Chittisinghpura massacre as the more authentic and impartial version of events, I think its entirely legitimate to point out the numerous instances of factual errors, cherrypicking of facts, and outright POV issues in that article.Kabuli (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.