Talk:2016–2017 Kashmir unrest

Response section

I was wondering whether it would be wise to add comments by Indian politicians and them blaming Pakistan for the unrest? many articles suggest that its this attitude of denial of home grown freedom movements which stoke the massacres we see so often in Indian-controlled Kashmir. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source that says that this "attitude" has stoked anything, we can discuss further. Please keep in mind that there are plenty of reliable sources that document Pakistan's involvement. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Fahad Shah source

Other reports suggest that issues dating back to 2010 where mass protests lead to many civilian deaths contributed to the current situation. While suggesting that India's continued dealing of the issue as law and order related while ignoring the deep rooted political aspirations of the people as a reason for the unrest and India’s failure to address Kashmir’s political issues coupled with dealing with protesters with deadly force will only continue the cycle of unrest.

References

Could please show me where I have added original research ? did you bother reading the source I provided for the addition I made ? 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. Please provide a quotation that justifies your content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"India’s reaction to this uprising and many in past has been to blame Pakistan. A minister of the Indian government accused Pakistan of interfering into India’s internal affairs. Kiren Rijiju, the union minister of state for home affairs, said, “[Pakistan] should worry [more] about human rights violations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir than Jammu and Kashmir. Kashmir is an internal matter of India.” Additional troops were also sent to Kashmir, with New Delhi seeing the problem as a law and order issue, and ignoring the deep rooted political aspirations of the people. In the 2010 uprising, the Indian government sent a three-member team to assess the situation, but their report also didn’t address the deeper political issues.

India’s failure to address Kashmir’s political problem, while people only resorted to peaceful protests, has led to this new anger. This new generation of youth taking to the streets, different than any in past, will be committed to defying restrictions and facing the Indian soldiers’ bullets to make a political statement. Violence begets violence and soon many young boys may be inspired to follow in Wani’s path, seeking to lead Kashmir to a new political reality." 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph you quote is not talking about causes of the unrest, whereas your text does. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, a form of WP:OR.

The second paragraph is talking about the causes in a cursory way, but note that it is already covered in my first paragraph, which is based on much more in-depth analytical sources:

Several reasons for this trend have been cited such as the absence of a political dialogue, the lack of economic opportunities, frustration due to high unemployment, excessive militarisation of the public space and repeated human rights violations by the security forces.

I can expand on that further, and probably will. But you definitely need to delete your WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Update needed 16 July 2016

[Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)]

The current death toll in Kashmir is reported to be 41.

I am new here and don't know how to summarize or cite in the proper format. For example, embedded references from Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir are included in the article quoted below. Other details were not clearly cited in the article, but are reflected in the websites for Greater Kashmir and Rising Kashmir. Hindustan Times adds a newer detail that the newspaper ban is for 3 days. But the Times of India is outdated by 2 days.

I don't want to take responsibility for summarizing and editing, so the following is a verbatim quote from NDTV: Srinagar: One more person died in firing by security forces after clashes in Kashmir on Saturday, taking the number of deaths in the violence triggered by the killing of terrorist Burhan Wani to 41. Cable TV services were suspended for more than 12 hours and newspapers have alleged a media gag. Here are the top 10 developments in the story:

   One person was killed and two injured after security forces opened fire on a crowd when they attacked a police post in Kupwara district of north Kashmir.
   Small protests were reported in some parts of the Valley but the protesters were chased away by security personnel who resorted to baton charge, an official said.
   Journalists and editors sat on a protest in Srinagar after being told not to publish newspapers by authorities. From tomorrow, newspapers will not be sold on newsstands but online editions will continue, they said.
   Newspapers in Kashmir reported raids by police on their offices, arrest of employees and seizure of printing plates. Greater Kashmir, the largest circulated daily in the Valley, said around 50,000 copies of their newspaper were confiscated today.
   "This is a press emergency in Kashmir. This kind of gag is not the first but this time the government has formally banned us from publishing newspapers. We don't know when it will be lifted," said Shujat Bukhari, editor of Rising Kashmir.
   Senior government sources told NDTV that the gag was ordered because the distribution of the newspapers would mean movement of vehicles in violation of the eight-day long curfew in all 10 districts.
   Cellphone and internet services remained disabled in large parts of Kashmir to prevent the spread of rumours that could provoke violence. All telecom operators had been asked to suspend services yesterday.
   Cable operators said that they had been allowed to restore their services but warned not to carry Pakistani channels. "We have not received anything in writing but we were told to shut the operations. Police didn't given us any reason but we had to follow the order," Rufail Shafi, a cable operator, told NDTV.
   Amarnath Yatra, suspended amid the violence, resumed from Jammu today under tight security.
   More than 2,000 have been injured in violent protests that broke out after the killing of Burhan Wani, poster boy of Kashmir's new-age militancy, last Friday.

Some clarifying facts I am searching for are: how many of the 41 reported dead are authorities, and how many are civilians; and of the civilians, how many are protestors and how many are uninvolved bystanders; similarly, how many of the 2000 reported injured are authorities, and how many are civilians; and of the civilians, how many are protestors and how many are uninvolved bystanders. I am a nuetral foreigner located in Kashmir, currently with access to internet through broadband, but affected by extended curfews and strikes and lack of mobile service. My only access to news now is through neighborhood rumors (of both separatist sentiment and fear-of-separatist sentiment) and online news, so I am eager to see the facts collected here.Nomadshepherdess (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

No need for list of civilians killed

I wonder for what reason the list of dead civilians has been added. Articles about unrest or any fatal incident don't contain list of killed civilians. These people are not individually notable. As such I don't see any reason to add their names. The list should be removed. Do you agree? 117.214.245.178 (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the list is not encyclopaedic. But I don't mind keeping it around till the situation calms down, as a mark of respect for the dead. The services are shut down in Kashmir right now and people that can get through to us will be able to access the information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Wikipedia is not a place to honour or mark respect for the dead. Your reasoning is insufficient and doesn't even seem to be following the rules. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The list was in violation of several policies I recently took time to read about including WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:DUE and possibly even WP:SOAPBOX and hence I removed it as it was directly against what the policies say. Please follow the policies not your own personal opinion. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ya Allah Help the khasmer Emy 15:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inamelahi (talk • contribs)

Non-neutral POV

The editor who created and added a lot of text in this article has been confiremd to be a sockpuppet. He had been repeatedly editing some articles and shaping them according to a POV favourable to Kashmiris. This is also apparent here as the article seems to be favouring Kashmiri POV and is presenting them as victims all the while omitting other viewpoints which might not think so. The article also reads like a newspaper in several places. In fact you can clearly read the article to confirm so. A few examples of the above raised issues are:

• The communal polarisation in India and the violence targeting Muslims are widely discussed in Kashmiri homes.""
• The militant wing (Hizbul Mujahideen) commanded by Burhan Wani has been dubbed "new-age militancy." It has recruited local youth, educated and middle-class, who are conversant with social media and not afraid to reveal their identities. They have achieved an immense popularity among the Kashmiri population. When Waseem Mall and Naseer Ahmad Pandit were killed by security forces, tens of thousands of local Kashmiris came to attend the funeral and the funeral rites had to be repeated six times to allow all the mourners to participate. - Downright unnecessary especially in case of deaths of other militants and also contradictory to facts as Wani wasn't the only leader of Hizbul Mujahideen, the group is even older than him.

• According to a police official, there were misgivings within the security establishment against killing Wani owing to his popularity, but they were not heeded by the authorities. Wani left home to become a militant at age 15 after an an incident with the police that humiliated him. The Kashmiri youth angered by the "never-ending militarisation" of the Valley were drawn to him and his constant presence on the social media made him a household name. - This is under a section called "Operation against Wani", even though it shouldn't be there and is undue especially the last two sentences about Wani leaving home and why the Kashmiri youth were drawn to him which hy the way is a non-neutral POV copied from the source without mentioning the one who said it.

• Protestors have come back to the streets in all parts of the Valley, and demonstrations and stone throwing "have not stopped" since the news of his death. - Reads like a newspaper.

I suggest this article be edited to show a neutral POV and be re-written in a proper Wikipedia style. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

All the passages you quote are mine, and not of any sockpuppet. Since the article is describing events that are taking shape even as we are writing, it is bound to be a bit like news. I don't see any harm in that. Neither do I see anything wrong with "Kashmiri POV." It is after all their unrest we are talking about. If you have other sources and viewpoints that need to be covered, please feel free to bring them up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok I didn't know it was you who added it. But regardless POV should remain neutral and shouldn't belong to any one specific group. Besides I didn't say it contains "Kashmiri POV", I said it favours "Kashmiri POV" of the situation. The article seems biased. Also you're reasoning that it's bound to be like news seems unreasonable, it is quite easy to change the language of a sentence at least in this case. The language at several places does not seem in line with Wikipedia standards. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made edits in some sentences. The one which I said reads like a news, has had its language changed. Although the language is changed, the information being presented is still the same. If it's ok or not, do inform me. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

With regard to in-line attributions, here are the principles I use. When it is an analysis or interpretation of facts, I attribute it. When it is factual information, but multiple sources give different versions, then I use attribution for each of them. But when it is factual information not contradicted by other equally reliable sources, I don't use attribution. For example, the fact that Burhan Wani became a "household name" because of his social media presence is expressed in tons of sources [1]. It is not appropriate to attribution for this "fact." WP:NPOV tells you not to state facts as opinions, nor opinions as facts. We have to know how to distinguish between the two, even though sometimes the borderlines can be blurred. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The term "new-age militancy" is also widely used [2]. I don't exactly know how it came into being, but we definitely need to mention the term found in reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Coming to your objections stated above:

• Downright unnecessary especially in case of deaths of other militants and also contradictory to facts as Wani wasn't the only leader of Hizbul Mujahideen, the group is even older than him. - This article is neither about Wani nor about Hizb. It is about Kashmir unrest, which is widespread among the population according to the sources (predating Wani's killing by almost a year.) What happened with Wani's killing appears to be a consequence of the unrest rather than the cause.
• This is under a section called "Operation against Wani", even though it shouldn't be there and is undue especially the last two sentences about Wani leaving home and why the Kashmiri youth were drawn to him which hy the way is a non-neutral POV copied from the source without mentioning the one who said it. - I disagree. This explains why Wani's killing triggered the explosion. I have no idea what you mean by "non-neutral POV." I think you are still mistaking me for the sock. Or you better explain what you mean by "neutral" and "non-neutral." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I never mistook you for the sock. I only thought the edits were by the sock, you should pay attention to what others are saying. Besides you are right at some points though the article at places does read like a non-neutral POV and like a newspaper. Language like becoming a household name is used by newspapers and common people, even if you what claim that the other sources too say this, you still have to follow proper language. For example simply change it to he had a wide reach among the Kashmiri youth. Some of what you present as a fact in the article are simply opinions of the authors. And I've already told you what I mean by "non-neutral POV" and "neutral POV". This is because this article seems highly biased in favour of Kashmiris and presents them as the victim. We are not here to do that. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

An anon editor rightly summarized some of the issues about the article I raised: improper usage of tenses and close paraphasing. To be even more short: proper format has not been followed. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

Newpsaper outlets have given up their protest against a ban against them and havr resumed printing on 21 July after a meeting with the state CM Mehbooba Mufti. Please add about the resumption of publishing of newspapers after a meeting between Mufti and editors of the outlets. Here is the source. Thank you. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Curfew has been lifted in 4 districts of Kashmir. Please add about this. Here is the source: [3]. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ I will rework the section on News blackout tonight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

There is curfew in whole valley on 13 day continuously and also not any kind of relaxation. Please read sources which are from Kashmir as they know better than anyone else in the world. The newspaper mentions "The police on Thursday categorically stated that curfew, which entered its 13th today, is on and that there shall be no relaxation in the curbs “till further orders.” Please see the sources

Sleepersleep (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree No action required. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

References

The negotiations

Section is a blatant copyright violation. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why remove statement of External Affairs Minister?

Kautilya3 can you explain why you think reaction of somebody with an important governmental post who is an ex-General has no business here yet you seem to add the reaction of an author basee on assertion that civil society counts in a democracy? I am not contesting you adding back Arundhati Roy's statement, I'm merely asking why do you think statement of person who is a recipient many prestigious official posts isn't as important as that of an author. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir is not an "external affair." It is not in his jurisdiction. Therefore, his position makes little difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How does jurisdiction figure into this? Does such a rule even exist? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Besides if you removed it based on jurisdiction, then please note Kashmir is an "external affair" because it involves more than 1 country. Ofcourse Indian government considers its matters an internal affair and I'm an Indian myself, but the basic fact is Pakistan has large influence in Kashmir asides from having part of it under its control. Since a foreign country involved, I doubt how you can claim it is not the jurisdiction of an External Affairs Minister especially considering he was talking about the Pakistan-backed separatists being responsible for the unrest. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

There are aspects of Kashmir that involve external affairs. But Kashmiri participation in the 'epic story' of India is not one of those. VK Singh made enough cringe-worthy remarks in his career and this is not much above them. Since we are giving enough coverage to the Home Minister, whose responsibility Kashmir is, I don't see why we need Singh's remarks in addition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I never even included the statement about Kashmiri participation in "epic story" of India. All I talked about was the Kashmir unrest. This isn't about cringe-worthy remarks, simply domestiv reactions. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What an exceptional logic given by Kuatliya. One side Pakistan, an external entity is being mentioned in the article with respect to its involvmnet in the unrest, but at the same time the statement of External Affairs Minister is being removed because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-phrased Use of pellet guns

I've re-phrased Use of Pellet guns. Do you think it is ok to now remove the notice of close-paraphrasing? I believe I have solved it with the re-wording. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2016

Important,Please Protect this page as some one has totally changed the article. Sentences and paragraphs have changed, which needs immediate attention. Changes done after (16:41, 22 July 2016‎ Kautilya3) needs deletion immediately.

Sleepersleep (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The article hasn't been totally changed so I don't understand what you are talking about. The only changes that have been made are addition of new events, updating of casualty counts, update of pellet injury counts, removal of unsourced content and re-phrasing of some sentences fof ot to better fit into Wikipedia's writing style. These are pretty normal changes that are made in articles. I don't see how that is a "total change". DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan in the infobox

User:Saqib has added Pakistan in the infobox. But only parties directly involved in a conflict can be added without any special description. Any parties with indirect involvement for eg, like supporting must be mentioned with a special description. For eg, in this case Pakistan should be added under Kashmiri protesters and Kashmiri separatists like this:
"Kashmiri protesters
Kashniri separatists
Supported by:
Government of Pakistan"'"

Will it be ok if such a change is made in the infobox? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Kautilya3 for input. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable sources mention that Pakistan is involved in the current protests. So there is no need for it in in the infobox.

Saqib has also added a citation to a news report from Radio Pakistan from 6 July (two days before the death of Burhan Wani). I have been trying to find corroboration from an independent news source, but can't find any. If there is no corroboration, given that Radio Pakistan is not an independent news organisation, this reference needs to be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right Kautilya3. I pinged you because Pakistan isn't involved in the protests and has only given verbal support which cannot be included. So I wanted your opinion. Please remove it if you want to. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also you are right about Radio Pakistan. The article does not concern this recent unrest and the protests in the news article are mentioned specifically as occuring on Wednesday (6 July). It needs to be removed immediately. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I also think that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir needs to go at the top. Law and Order is a State subject in India. CRPF has been sent to assist the State Police, but it is not the driving force. I am also not confident that the Indian Army had much role in the current conflict, even though the Rashtriya Rifles were involved in the operation against Burhan Wani. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Jammu & Kashmir's government is subordinate to the Indian government though. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a very arguable point. I don't think we want to get into that here. As far as the conflict is concerned, Mehbooba Mufti is the "chairperson of Unified Headquarters, the grid comprising army, paramilitary forces, intelligence agencies, police and civil administration."

References

Then I suggest putting Government of J&K under Indian government and putting the army, CRPF and J&K police under Government of J&K. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Also note user Saqib had added the Indian Army in the infobox. Indian Army's camps and convoys have been attacked during the protests which also led to killing of civilians by armymen according to this source, the source contains confirmation of the civilian killings by SSP of Kulgam. It seems to me that the army was inadvertently dragged into the civil conflict, not by their own choice. They seemed to have only played a minor role in the conflict that too inadvertently unlike CRPF, however they have played a role nonetheless. What's your view about this? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have retained the Indian Army in the infobox, but put it at the bottom. It would be useful to highlight the type of force involved in each case, if we have the information available. We should also be careful when using foreign Press, because they tend to call all armed security forces "the Army." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Causes and goals in the infobox

I'm wondering what should be the motives and causes in the infobox. Here are my suggestions:

Causes

• Killing of Burhan Wani
• Militarization of Kashmir
• Rise of forceful Hindu nationalism
• Communal polarisation and attacks on Muslims (not sure about the last part)
• Perception of shrinking political space due to alliance between PDP and BJP (might seem lengthy)
• Increase of home-grown militancy and radicalisation in Kashmir
• Human right abuses

Goals

• Demilitarization of valley
• Repeal of AFSPA and Public Safety Act
• Demand for secession from India/demand for right to self-determination

All suggestions are welcome. Thank you. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That was a pretty good try! Here is a revised list: Causes

• Killing of Burhan Wani
• Persistent militarisation of Kashmir
• Human right abuses
• Reaction to Hindu nationalism

Goals

• Demilitarization of valley
• Repeal of AFSPA and Public Safety Act
• Independence/Autonomy for Kashmir

I think the mention of "Kashmir" is important in the last instance, because Jammu and Ladakh are not involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Seems alright, the only problem I have is with omittance of increasing radicalisation and home-grown militancy as a reason, even the article itself mentions it in the "Background" part. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I would put them under effects rather than causes. The dialogue processes that were started after 2005/2008 were put in cold storage when UPA II lost steam, and the new government did nothing to resurrect them. That led to increasing disaffection in the populace, which itself is part of the "unrest," though it is larger unrest than what we are covering in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The list is pretty much ok, as put by Kuatilya. Only thing which I think needs a mention is "Demand for right to self-determination" in the last goal. This may be added to the sentence by Kuatilya or shortened accordingly.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Right to self-determination" is certainly how Geelani phrases it but multiple reliable sources say people ask for "azadi", e.g., That is what I phrased as "Independence/autonomy." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The ultimate objective behind wanting right to self-determination is of course independence/autonomy. Independence/autonomy is the ultimate goal so I doubt it should be changed to right to self-determination. 117.215.224.24 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Kuatilya, the source provided by you itself says, "Many of them uttered the word azaadi, but the meaning of that word was different to different people. It meant different things like self-determination, independence, autonomy, self-government or devolution of powers", i.e Azaadi (Independence) in Kashmir's context means many/different things. Then how can you restrict it to only one of them? So, by putting "Demand for right to self-determination" we will be giving an wholesome view and and broader picture of the issue. By writing only "independence/autonomy", it seems that all Kashmiris are ONLY asking for Independence which infact is not the case. Hence, it should either be Self-determination, or alternatively we can spell out everything under the goals, but that may be lengthier.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have added "self-determination" as another option among the goals. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad that we agreed on something.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

In the Causes, why is Pakistan sponsored Terrorism to disintegrate India not listed? That is the main reason. Indian soldiers retaliate because terrorists hide among the protesters and shoot Indian soldiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.60.232.127 (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see the section below on How is this NPOV? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the attacks on Kashmiri Pandits and Amarnath Yatra be included in the infobox? It is mentioned within the page though. solomonsunder 09:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Solomonsunder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonsunder (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2016

The date is written 15 July while as exact date is 8 July as far as curfew in kashmir is concerned. Please change the second paragraph accordingly after checking the proper references. Also read this complete paragraph, there are lot of mistakes as far as grammar is concerned, please change that also. Thanks

DnDamubit (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Done VarunFEB2003 ^{I am Online} 07:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Only "curfew-like" restrictions were imposed in Kashmir on 8 July. Many of the sources call it curfew-like but some sources mistakenly straightaway take it to be "curfew". It's not impossible for sources to sometimes be wrong and make simple mistakes. But all the sources say that curfew was imposed in "all areas" on 15 July and I haven't seen a single source contradicting that. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

How is this NPOV?

How is this NPOV?

From the infobox:

• Killing of Burhan Wani
• Persistent militarisation of Kashmir
• Human rights abuses
• Reaction to Hindu nationalism

Just asking. TuckerResearch (talk) 01:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not. I'm removing it.142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I guess we have to start catering to readers that read only infoboxes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Is adding "Persistent militarisation", "Reaction to Hindu nationalism", "human rights abuses" as causes not neutral POV? These were added simply because the sources said they are the causes, there's no sensible argument as to how it is not "neutral". Don't want to sound offensive but if it is being called "non-neutral" simply because of the things it says that human rights abuses, militarisation and Hindutva are the causes; then those calling it non-neutral are themselves doing so based on non-neutral reasons. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't doubt the accuracy of the claim those factors played a part in all this, but where is the mention of longstanding support for and apathy towards Islamic extremism in Kashmir? Surely that plays a part in radical militant leaders gaining power, and then being moved against and/or taken out in military operations(which would take place in any other civilized country). Then the unrest starts after the influential militant leader is killed. It does seem as if all the blame for this unrest is being laid at India's feet. It should be mentioned this is not a reaction to an unjustified killing or injustice. The factors listed previously do not lead people to engage in militancy on their own, there needs to be another factor which is not being listed. These young men in the streets(or forests of Kashmir) are encouraged to fight just as in Palestine, Egypt, etc. We've seen Israeli militants take up violence in the name of retaliation on behalf of Jews, encouraged by similar radical religious authorities as well. Part of this unrest is related to popular support for these kinds of extremist groups in Kashmir. It's not as if in the past year Kashmir has embraced something new and unfamiliar to them, maybe that should be mentioned. My intention is to be neutral, I believe in concrete facts and I despise those who use wikipedia for political/social reasons(all too common). But there is a glaring omission in the main article. This sentence sums it up in my view, "The communal polarisation in India and the violence targeting Muslims are widely discussed in Kashmiri homes." What isn't being discussed? Besides Pakistani interference, the ISI, Jamaat-i-Islami, violence targeting non Muslims, etc. You know, the reasons for "militarization in the streets". It's not as if a bunch of soldiers fell from the sky, they were all over as part of counter-insurgency operations because they can't rely on heavy weapons in densely populated terrain. Does this unrest reflect a reaction or an embrace? Either way I hope the violence ends soon. Forgive my inability to sign my posts properly I don't have an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.166.49 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Content on Wikipedia is written based on the views found in reliable sources, not individual editors' opinions. If you would like to bring up alternative viewpoints, please provide the reliable sources where they are stated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits by DnDamubit

User:DnDamubit you are making controversial changes based on your unilateral decisions. It is ironic that you tell others to talk but you yourselves haven't even made a single discussion on this article's talk page. You are instead constantly edit-warring.

Recently you removed the section of "Action against police" saying that it is not reliable, read what Education Minister Nayeem Akhtar said on ban of newspaper. However the section you are removing isn't about ban of newspaper but action against police officers and it is well-sourced with reliable and well-reputed news websites. Your reason is nonsensical and according to Wikipedia policies you must have a good reason for removing sourced content which you clearly don't.

Another of your edits is your constant addition of "Coverage in international media". Although you claim that "it is important to understand the depth of current situation from the international angle", the only thing your addition says is that newspapers and news channels are covering the situation which is completely WP:UNDUE and blindly obvious, not to mention something that shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Different death toll in different sources

Many sources are giving diffrrent drath toll. India Today says the latest is 56 while Dunya News presents it as far greater, 69 dead in this article. However do note the article is not neutral and uses disparaging language against Indian forces. Times of India in this article says the toll is 53. All sources however give the latest civilian death toll to be more than 50. I suggest we simply present the civilian death toll as 50+ instead of giving an accurate number. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

69 is an outlier, and we can ignore it. Kashmiri newspapers would be the most reliable sources for this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Kashmiri sources themselves differ. Kashmir Dispatch have gave the death toll as 58 (I assume it's the total including police and civilian deaths). Kashmir Reader gave it as 53. Greater Kashmir gave it as 57. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We never get perfect agreement on these things. 50+ is ok for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok then I'll change it. I doubt the death toll will be completely clear until the unrest ends. Until then we shouldn't use any accurate numbers. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead figures

Someone recently added Asiya Andrabi in thr lead figures in infobox. However she hasn't been a significant part in the unrest like the other separatists Geelani, Farooq and Malik who have taken a regular part in the protests themselves, have given many statements against Indian security forces and on the shutdown. Asiya Andrabi doesn't seem to be involved in the protests and her role only seems to br limited to giving statements. Aside from her calling for a shutdown along with other separatists after Burhan's death, she has only given press statements which by rhe eay haven't recieved much attention, here are the links: [4], [5], [6].

I doubt she qualifies for being listed as a "lead figure". DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2016

Pakistan Please add this

Pakistan has been found to have fuelled and funded the unrest through monetary transactions to dubious Kashmiri accounts as exposed by India's NIA (National Investigation Agency).

Ashiya Nusrat (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as your request is not written from a neutral point of view and you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am working on adding a section that covers this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hindu/Muslim NPOV

Firstly, "evidently a factor" is OR. Where is the evidence of it as a factor? If the casus belli is Wani's death then that is a consequence of the actions of the state (ie- AFSPA). If religion was a factor then the PDP and BJP wouldn't be on the same side (see infobox). The factor is the issue of the state because the evidence of religious rhetoric is countered by state action (political reactions).
Further PDP and BJP also have Hindu and Muslims support, respectively.Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, you are trying to counter reliable sources with your WP:OR. That is not how Wikipedia is written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Where am I trying to counter RS? Did you read the comment I made? I further left the content in as well. Nothing has been removed, while minr details were just reorganized before you blindly REVERTED EVERYTHING.

Kindly cite where I am inserting my POV?

As for the cassus belli I mentioned above, it is cited in the infobox here itself.Lihaas (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Further the Ramachandrn source doesn't mention any Hindu context for the uprising this year. Other than "victory of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ", which itself is an op-ed andhence POV. The direct cause this rising after Wani is not drawn in the source.Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all this is battleground editing. "Last clean version" is the stable version that was existing prior to the contentious edits, which is what you have reinstated, not the "last clean version." You need to discuss your issues here, as per WP:BRD, and achieve consensus before reinstating your edits.

I have said that you are trying to counter RS by your OR. You are doing so when you claim that is a consequence of the actions of the state (ie- AFSPA) (never mind that you haven't said which "state" you are referring to) and If religion was a factor then the PDP and BJP wouldn't be on the same side.

The "Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party" cannot be removed because it is sourced to RS. (The Ramachandran article is not an op-ed, The Diplomat is not a newspaper.) Moreover, the article was written in May 2016 long before Burhan Wani was killed. The experts have observed and commented on the dissatisfaction that was rising in Kashmir before any of this happened. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Firtly you have blindly reverted everything when your position was to certain content. NO content has been removed in regards to your original assertion of adding the religion stuff which you alleged was the POV. Go ahead and read what you reverted without expressing any opposition. to reiterate NOTHING was removed, merely a tag was added to generate discussion. The religion stuff is still there. That's what your "contentious edits" are and still on the page. read it!

I have reiterated that your claim of a religious basis has no truth and I have cited that as such in this discussion, which you are entering SYNTHESIS and accusing me of OR, while still leaving the content on the page as it was!

The caveat is for the BJP page that is wikilinked. there is no connection to this incident which was "long before Burhan Wani was killed". If it was religious then where is the Hindu counter-action against the Muslim protesters? The article clearly cites Wani's killing as the cassus belliw nad the infobox says so.

Further the article certainly reads like an op-ed irrelevant to the situation.

Further, since no content of controversy was changesd kindly continue this discussion before we get consensus on the relevant SECTION. Tags exist for a reason, you cannot unilaterally removeit without this consensus discussion that is ongoing, more so that your conent is still on the page.Lihaas (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Blind reverts" are what happen when you make a series of POV edits without regard to policies or good justifications. You can't expect us to sift through every change you have made and tell you precisely what is wrong with each of them. When the edits are reverted, you need to raise here all the issues that concern you and achieve consensus on the changes you want to make. The burden for achieving WP:CONSENSUS rests on you, the editor who wants to make changes.

As for the Hindu/Muslim issue, which you started discussing but never concluded, the pressure of Hindu nationalism has been noted in multiple reliable sources. As for the Muslim sentiments,

• Baweja quotes Burhan Wani's father as saying Yes, I do get a bit disturbed but our Islam says that God, Quran and the Prophet are bigger than anything, even bigger and more important than our sons. Hence he supports his son fighting the Indian state.
• Zargar says In this continuing political conundrum, never before in Kashmir’s political history has the assertion of Kashmiri Muslim identity acquired more significance and prominence than it has now. He also says For the Kashmiris Muslims, the rise of this forceful Hindu nationalism has also affected how they view the Indian state. In wake of this perceived adversity to their identity and survival, the rise of Indian nationalism has, consequently, reshaped Kashmiri Muslim identity as well.
• Sudha Ramachandran says The decision of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to join hands with the BJP to form a coalition government in J&K is unpopular and is widely seen by Kashmiris, including PDP supporters as a “betrayal” given the BJP’s anti-Muslim outlook and its commitment to revoke Article 370 of the Indian Constitution which confers special status on J&K.

Your OR that religion is not an issue is not supported by RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

I've made some fixes with WPCleaner (fixing Reference duplication - Spelling and typography - Date format in templates - Duplicate arguments in template calls). Ymblanter, could you please copy and paste this into the article? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 22:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Contents of intended new page removed for navigability. Text included categorization and sort not suitable for a talk page. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This edit does not look absolutely critical at the moment. The page appears to be set to have its current prot level expired around tomorrow. Suggesting to perform WPCleaner-style edits then. non-admin response — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 September 2016

I wanted to make the latest edition in the "Timeline of the unrest" section about today's events. Here it is:

"Two protesters were killed on 10 September in clashes with security forces. One of the deceased was killed in Shopian after being hit by a teargas shell while the other was killed in Anantnag when security forces used pellet guns on protesters. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Toggling. The page's full prot looks to expire around tomorrow, at which time the edit can be made. Re-open if this is absolutely time-critical. non-admin response — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 September 2016

Daily Basis I request the administrator to make the update of the page date wise. So that it can help to understand well what happen in which date as Kashmir is very near to freedom from India due to worst unrest against Indian rule. This page will be highly cited later so that freedom movement of Kashmir can be recorded date wise by world community. JimeyTAG (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination

I notice that this article is currently a GA nominee. While I have not checked most of the criteria in any detail, an article needs to be stable in order to be passed as a GA: currently, this one is very far from being stable. I would suggest that the nomination be withdrawn, so everybody can focus instead on making improvements. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As it stands, this article is basically an anti-India hit piece.74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Intifada in kashmir

The 2016 kashmir situation is famius because of its unique features which are very clear by reading different news editorials. Many call it kashmir intifada as is evident by searching the same in google. I have read many articles by this name and not burhan aftermath. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himbi133 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Himbi133: If they're not covering Sharif's speech in the UN then please cite them, otherwise revert yourself. --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Himbi133: The terminology of intifada can certainly be discussed. But I am not sure why you chose to delete the term Burhan aftermath, which is something that many newspaper still continue to use, e.g., [7]. Can you explain that?

As for the description of intihada it has been used for the entire Kashimiri struggle, e.g., in Sumantra Bose's book, and it appears now that Kashmiris too are using it [8], but I don't see it narrowing down in any way to the present unrest. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Fisaannath22: The same edit inserting this POV-charged name is persistently being restored by new users that just seem to be editing on one topic which then disappear and then mysteriously another account appears making the exact same edits - Enaam1232, Himbi133 & now Fisaannath22. The terminology they're pushing has not been used to describe the 2016 Kashmir unrest, except for Nawaz Sharif's calling it "another Kashimiri intifada", which isnt WP:RS & definitely doesn't warrant it to be mentioned in the introduction. --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

off-topic

Hahaa, keeping a name to resumble a kashmiri does not change "pandit" perception which you have by changing from one name to another. Kutilya3 plz verify Salma Mahmoudl same DinoBanbinoNFS :DinoBambinoNFS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisaannath22 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC) @RegentsPark and Fisaannath22: Please take notice here. These user(s) are just spewing personal attacks. nothing constructive here, it seems this is a one purpose account thats objective is to push POV and personal ad hominem. I'm not here to edit war so stop accusing me of such. I've kept on trying to open dialogue with these editors but they refuse. Please get the check user done on my account, I welcome it. Have a good day & Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC) @RegentsPark: please search the username that this editor signed themself off as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=DinoBambinoNFS&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1 Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Regards, --Salma Mahmoud (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mfarazbaig: I am happy for you to mention the term Intifada lower down in the lead or in the body, and attribute it to specific sources. Prem Shankar Jha's view is quite valuable, but I am not sure it is universally shared. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Separate page for 2017

I undid the page renaming by User:3dsxl. He did not provide a reason for the renaming. Also the article states in in December the separatist relaxed the 2016 protests on the 14th and were planning separate protest for 2017 (that indicates there were 47 days in 2016 without protests), so creating a 2017 page would be better. The Soldier of Peace (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see protests still kept ongoing and they issued instructions to keep it ongoing. Only the number of shutdown days and protests were decreased. The intensity is decreased. But we have to use sources that say the unrest is ended or effectively ended at least. Forming our own opinion isn't allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline. 2017 unrest, not the continuation?

I came here to document the recent events of disturbance in Kashmir, in the article. The violence during the Srinagar by-election 2 days ago, and the clashes during a military operation in the end of the last month. But I noticed that the article specifies the timeline of the unrest as 8 July 2016 – 20 February 2017 (7 months, 1 week and 5 days). The end point of the unrest is sourced to a news event where the separatists called of their strike temporarily for Shivratri festival. Though, there was a break in the unrest for some weeks, and the intensity of protests has decreased, the recent happenings clearly show that the unrest has certainly, at least, not ended.

The region has seen heightened tension and increased unrest since July last year when influential militant Burhan Wani was killed by Indian forces.

The present disturbances are apparently an extension of the 2016 unrest, if not reasonably specified otherwise by any reliable source. So I want to remove the end point of the timeline in the article and include the recent occurrences of Kashmir unrest. If any editor has any objections, or suggestions, please let me know. Thank you. — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the end date. We shouldn't put an end date until well after it really ends and the RS say so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done --- Tyler Durden (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

References

ISI funding

The cause of this unrest needs to be changed to ISI funding. I have some RS below to back my point.

Intelleigence Bureau of India has concluded that ISI paid separatists and caused the Kashmir unrest. I have two RS below.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/jammu-and-kashmir-india-inter-services-intelligence-pakistan-isi-separatists-kashmir-unrest/1/920049.html

http://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/8956-isi-s-budget-kashmir-stone-pelting-rs-1000cr

India today and AAJ tak also did a sting operation where stone pelters admitted to being paid. Another RS.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/jammu-and-kashmir-stone-pelters-hizbul-mujahideen-burhan-wani/1/915751.html Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kushagr.sharma1, in your recent changes to the article,[9] you reverted Kautilya3[10] and put the 'funding' points above 'Burhan Wani's killing' in the info-box order. Your explanation was 'most recent findings' and 'Wikipedia promotes neutrality'. While WP:NPOV clearly says, "...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". None of the sources that gave information on 'funding' aspects of the unrest say that funding started the unrest. [11] - This India Today report is based on the confessions of some protestors, where none of them said that funding started the protests. Neither the report says anything as such, except that funding is fueling the unrest. The same is the case with this report - [12] : In its report, the IB states that an uprising was planned in the Valley by Pakistan much before July 2016. It also states that Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani's encounter helped the ISI ignite rebellion across the Valley. Even the IB report says, though ISI planned an uprising much before July 2016, it clearly states Wani's killing was the starting point. And most importantly, above all, there are many number of independent reliable sources, some of them also available in the references of this article, that clearly say that Wani's killing sparked the present unrest. The lead of the article mentions the same as per WP:DUE. So please do not engage in WP:OR, and kindly self-revert. Regards, Tyler Durden ([[User talk: |talk]]) 07:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Tyler Durden, Thank you for your reply. I hope you try and understand what the words proportionality and neturality mean. I am NOT arguing that the Wani killing was not a part of the causes. If I was, I would have simply removed it. What you have to understand is that the article is really bias from the prespective of the Pakistani side who blame stuff like Hindutva for the uprising. No IB report or any government report has found this to be a cause. That term is very contentious and very bias. I personally do not believe in this but wikipedia has proportionality and neutrality. For that reason it is important to get the viewpoint of the indians and not just pakistanis or kashmiris. By advocating for the removal for my additions you clearly have a personal bias that you are attributing to the article. There is a reason why your account is under serious investigation by Wikipedia and why you might even be blocked from wikipedia. If you want to make an article bias please have the guts to make an account with your real name instead of a fake name Tyler Durden. I have dealt with Kautilya3 before, and he if he feels my changes arent warranted I will abide by him because he unlike you actually follows the rules on wikipedia. Cheers, Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me explain the rationale for the order in which the causes are listed:

• Burhan Wali's killing is the immediate trigger. It goes first.
• The remaining factors come from the Background section of the article, which have been reported and analysed well before the event.
• The ISI funding etc. are coming to light now. We don't yet have analysts and scholars commenting upon it. The IB report on its own is a PRIMARY source and not strong enough for us to cover it. Until reliable sources analyse it and comment upon it, we can't make any decisions about it. So, it goes at the end.

That is how things stand at the moment. They can change in future, with more information and analysis becoming available. Then we will reconsider it.

On a personal note, even if the ISI had been planning to instigate an unrest, I would think it would have been trying to exploiut all the other factors listed earlier in the list. If the alliance between the National Conference and the Congress(I) gave rise to unrest in 1987, an alliance between the PDP and BJP now would obviously give rise to a similar unrest. In fact, more so, because the Congress(I) was at least nominally secular, but the BJP is not. And, the PDP was supposed to have been pro-independent whereas the NC was pro-India. The PDP-BJP alliance was entirely ridiculous from the Kashmiri point of view. So the unrest was entirely predictable. That is my personal analysis, but based on what is known about 1987, which has been analysed to death by hundreds of reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3,

I agree with the rationale for the order, it makes sense when you give the reasoning for it. As per the personal note I think it makes perfect sense why ISI would instigate given they have the perfect partner in pro-autonomy/indepedence PDP. PDP and BJP have been in a tussle over this uprising and the coalition has always been on a slippery slope. There is a reason why JK police is rarely attacked while the central CRPF is always the target. I wouldnt be surprised if PDP had some sort of understanding with ISI but then again this is nothing short of speculation or personal opinion. The violence in 1987 was also funded/fueled by pakistan and this is accepted by secondary sources and even by wikipedia. So the question is why wouldnt pakistan do it again when they have the perfect partner. Again I agree that there is no further analysis so far, therefore there is no use in adding a section.

Also thank you for your reply. This is the kind of discussion which makes wikipedia a better place. Kushagr.sharma1 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Separate 2017 unrest article

The unrest associated with Burhan's death died down by February although most of it was already over some time before that. The tension created by it still lingers but the current situation is not due to it. The current unrest actually started primarily since the April 15 security raid [13] on a college. Also unlike the previous one where the separatists guided the protesters and issued regular schedules, there is little involvement of them in this one. In addition, even the protesting age groups are largely the youth including students whereas the last time every one was involved in good numbers including working-class. I suggest creation of a new article for the unrest starting in Summer 2017 as their is little connection between the two. 117.214.154.196 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that supports your claim that the current unrest is unconnected to the 2016 unrest. The single source you have given says nothing of the kind, and it is not a particularly reliable source either. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The New Indian Express paper is clearly a reliable source and clearly mentions the current clashes being sparked since the raid on a college: There have been daily student protests in Valley after April 15 raid of security forces on a college in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district during which over 50 students were injured. (Source: [14]). Many sources say the same thing. There was another clash during the Srinagar bypoll but it was separate too and died down:[15]. This is clearly not continuous. 117.199.89.119 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Changed location of source being used for funding from separatists

I've changed the location of a source which is an India Today report. It was being used to claim that protesters are being funded by separatists. However there was no mention in the source about the separatists. Even the source clearly has the protesters upon whom it based its report on, saying they don't know who funds them and says they are provided money by "underground" people, referring to a secretive group, but no mention of separatists who anyway are not underground groups. I also changed some of the content in the same article wrongly claiming the report was accusing separatists of funding them. This is why I've made my edit. There are already other sources used for it anyway. So I hope you won't mind.

The person User:Kushagr.sharma1 who seems to have added this source made an edit with information of funding by Islamic fundamentalists which actually wasn't even there in the source. He also made a needless politcally-biased comment accusing the ruling PDP of potentially whipping up the unrest, baselessly accusing another editor in an uncivil comment just because he contradicted his claims, as well as needlessly accusing the article of bias when it was based on analysis of reliable sources and trying to place the ISI funding over others just so he could push his narrative of it being primarly motivated by Pakistan which he seems to believe per his comments. While claiming about neutrality, his own comments and edits throw doubts on his own. I suggest this user be monitored for npn-neutral edits and warned if needed.

Meanwhile as I said I've shifted the source and changed some of the content. Hope you won't mind. 117.199.80.237 (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Shorten the article

The incidents during few initial months of the unrest are mentioned quite in detail while others only contain a sentence or two. I suggest cutting down the article by removing all non-notable incidents covered only by a few sources. Only notable details and major incidents which have been given a wide coverage should remain. 117.199.80.237 (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so, but please register an account first. It is pretty much impossible track the edits of unregistered users, especially with so many editors using the 117.199... domains. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't know there were so many. I'll create it when I come back to edit and remove non-notable details as right now I don't have time. Until then, please feel free to remove yourself whatever you deem non-notable. 117.199.80.237 (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Not news

Content added by Mfarazbaig[16] clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS, because we don't have to talk about minor clashes, internet shut down, train services, flag hosting, etc. instead just focus on the subject like other sections. Since the content was added by a paid editor, and his edits have been removed two times, better get consensus before reinserting them. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is for 'routine' news events only. Service blockades, allegations of extrajudicial killings/human shields, and subsequent protests hardly qualify as 'routine', especially since these reports are well-covered in mainstream sources (BBC). As this article is titled "2016–17 Kashmir unrest", your edit only removed sourced content. Please explain the sections to which WP:NOTNEWS is relevant, rather than linking to it, or undo your change. Failing that, dispute resolution can be opted. Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Writing about trivial non-notable incidents that weren't reported any further let alone resulting in conviction is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Capitals00 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the older version and got rid of the WP:NOTNEWS stuff. Just because something gets news coverage doesn't mean that it's not trivia and we have to include it. Also, the WP:ONUS is on you, Mar4d, to explain why it should be added. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Fork off "Reactions to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest"

I propose we fork off Reactions to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest because this article is getting quite large.VR _talk 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)