Jump to content

Talk:Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rename article

I would reiterate my suggestion at WP:TEAHOUSE discussion, that this article be renamed, and the text of the present article "rolled in" as part of a more comprehensive article covering the topic in a larger, historical sense. I would also strongly recommend linking the word 'pellet gun" at its first appearance to the Shotgun article, or even the subsection of "Shotgun" that covers gauge and shot sizes. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Does the Indian Army use pellet guns?

I can't find any sources which say whether the Indian army uses pellet guns or not. Anyone has any sources for this? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan I may be wrong, but this is my understanding. I doubt they (army) use. It is a crowd control weapon and not handled by the army. AFAIK, CRPF and state police department are incharge of crowd control and they are the ones using it. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I was suddenly surprised with the term AFAIK.... I thought it was a security force I have never heard of before in JK. After googling found out it was short for "as far as I know". (The shock!) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
LoL DiplomatTesterMan, I did a few google searches though. Here is the evidence to back my comment. Regards.
Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments

@Kautilya3:, @DBigXray:, @SshibumXZ:, @Adamgerber80: Should the current name of the article remain the same, "Pellet gun usage in Jammu and Kashmir" or should it be shifted to "Pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir"? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, hi! I think the current article title is good enough and there really is not a need to move the page.
Also, I noticed that I did not get your ping and the reason for that may be because you did not sign your original comment; pings on unsigned comments do not get delivered, so, be sure to 're-ping' people if you forget to sign a comment of yours. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 15:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
@SshibumXZ: Thanks for the comment. Yes I forgot to sign the original comment. I will reping the others. This is a controversial article and just wanted more than one eye on it, right from the beginning as well as being able to decide whether the current name is suitable or not. Thanks.
@Kautilya3:, @DBigXray:, @Adamgerber80: Re-pinging you guys in case you didn't get the first one, since I forogt to sign my comment that time, same message as above related to whether the article name is suitable or not or should be shifted to "Pellet guns in Jammu and Kashmir". According to SshibumXZ as above, i also think it fine, i guess. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
This is for everyone again. Is this a better page name? - "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir" as suggested by @Hamster Sandwich: at the Teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse#Are_snapshots/screengrabs_of_Google_search_results_allowed_in_articles?) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. The reason for the existence of this article is precisely the pellet gun usage. I don't see any reason why there should be an article on crowd control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
But personally I feel that the title "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir" as suggested by @Hamster Sandwich: to be a more appropriate title. By making the article on pellet gun, you are limiting the scope of the article to only one particular instance of crowd control. And it will be tough to write a neutral article with this title of "pellet gun..". While by using the "crowd control" related title, you can also discuss the teargas, pellet gun, flash grenade and other weapons that are used by the Police in the region. This title will also allow you to discuss the violent crowd and make the article less one sided. So given a choice between a title on pellet or Crowd control, I would prefer the latter.
That said we should discuss the other options as well, Do we already have an existing article on violent confrontations in Kashmir, I am not sure if we do have, if we dont have, it would be a good idea to start that one first and include all this material in that article, later on if needed, one can WP:CFORK a separate crowd control article from that. There are several documentaries that cover these violent confrontations almost every Friday, since the killing of Burhan Wani. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
1. For the time being, I think both "Pellet gun usage in Jammu and Kashmir" and "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir" should be developed separately.
2. I am hesitating to shift everything to the Crowd Control page for now due to lack of background reading related crowd control in general in the region and unsurity related to enough information being available or not related to other aspects of crowd control other than pellets guns and discussing pellet gun replacements and pellet gun blindings etc... I know there is more than enough information related to pellet guns, hence this page is easier to develop in the beginning.
3. Related to what DBigXray said, "it will be tough to write a neutral article with this title of "pellet gun..".". I do not feel that is the case. Neutrality can be maintained in various ways in this article.
  • Pellet guns are used as crowd control during very tense situations. The danger of the situations can be explained using relevant sources.
  • The section related to replacement and the committee deciding to keep pellet guns for now, is maintaining neutrality.
  • Mentioning in the lead that even security personnel have been injured by pellet guns is maintaining neutrality.
  • In the criticism section, the quote from Washington Post is maintaining neutrality.

“There is an orchestrated campaign against pellet guns precisely because it is doing the work of effectively controlling the violent mob protests [...] When there is a determined militant crowd hurling sharp stones at us and [they] break our helmets, shields and bones, then we need to act. Tear-gas shells are not very effective [...]."[1]

  • Other sources can be added to ensure neutrality in maintained.
4. Reiterating, for now I propose that both pages are worked upon at the same time. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
DBigXray, so yes, this is a good way to go about it, and sort of similar to what DBigXray wrote - "That said we should discuss the other options as well, Do we already have an existing article on violent confrontations in Kashmir, I am not sure if we do have, if we dont have, it would be a good idea to start that one first and include all this material in that article, later on if needed, one can WP:CFORK a separate crowd control article from that." I am also just suggesting the pellet gun usage article fork too for the time being and seeing how this one develops first. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Pellet guns blind too many protesters, so India seeks a new nonlethal weapon". The Washington Post. 31 August 2016.
  1. DTM, Why so ? Developing the main article and WP:SPINOFF in my opinion is the better approach. If you develop both separately in Mainspace then, I will start a merger discussion to try and get it merged. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  2. Regarding your hesitation, I think The current article is good enough to be simply renamed to "crowd control". we can add more content in due course of time.
  3. It will be hard to maintain neutrality, because the title will limit its scope to pellet guns and its victims and the coverage of the victims. without adequately presenting the background or presenting the Government side of the issue.
  4. DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 I suggest we move this article to crowd control now itself based on reasons above and pellet vs pellet shot gun concern raised by @Hamster Sandwich:. FYI, When I had first read the news about pellet gun I had assumed it to be pellet air gun, ( the one used in fairs to burst balloons) until i saw the picutres and understood that it was actually shotgun so I can understand the confusion others are having with this title. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You have no idea how irritating all this is. :D :D But I have moved it just now. I have a few minutes to spare so I will work on the article to signify the new page name. Kautilya3 had a problem with shifting it, so now I think they need to state his case too again if they have a problem with this shift. I was just asking everyone to be a bit patient with the shifting and all. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

My position is unchanged. We have plenty of reliable sources discussing the issues with pellet guns, none about "crowd control". The issues with pellet guns are quite serious. Dozens or even hundreds of pellets have penetrated single victims; the amount of work for hospitals in treating the victims is mind-boggling; and there were also cases of permanent maiming of victims, loss of limbs etc. I see no need for either title change or to change the subject of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Agreed with all your valid points. Please note there also have been many casualties due to firings with live bullets and even tear gas canisters exploding on head or being hit by canisters. I think all these should be addressed. Lets work to address all these, if the content is sufficiently large we can always follow WP:CFORK and WP:SPINOFF based on WP:SIZERULE--DBigXrayᗙ 23:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Curious

So what do the people of Jammu and Kashmir call actual pellet guns, meaning air or gas powered rifles and pistols? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dodger67: I asked two Kashmiri friends. Both said the english terms are used by Kashmiris, that is "pellet guns" and "pellets". One friend said "cher bandook" could also be used. ("bandook" is the normal hindi word for "gun", not specifically a Kashmiri word, and "cher" being used for pellets.) I will look online in Kashmiri newspapers for this and provide an update. Interesting question. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually "bandook" is an Urdu word. Agneyastra आग्नेयास्त्र is the proper Hindi word for it. What the whole world calls Pellet Shot Gun is called pellet Gun in Indian media while covering this Kashmir related incident. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Bandook is urdu! Uff! I always confuse my hindi and urdu words. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
1. I have to wonder if the media description of shotguns as "pellet" guns is a calculated move by the media (or others...)? Calculated to downplay the serious nature of firing on crowds with "live" ammunition. I would hate to think that the potential article may actually be a (unintended) "POV" phrasing of "Shotgun usage in..."
2. I am still not convinced that using local terminology/ colloquialism to describe a firearm more widely known in the English speaking/ language world as a "Shotgun" is not going to confuse readers (this is English WP, after all). Many people who do not click the blue link to Shotgun will remain under the impression that the description refers to air powered rifles, which in many places are accessible even to young children. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hamster Sandwich: Have you seen images online of the pellets that are being talked about in this article? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI, When I had first read the news about pellet gun I had assumed it to be pellet air gun, ( similar to a BB gun, the one used in fairs to burst balloons) until i saw the pictures and understood that it was actually shotgun so I can understand the confusion others are having with this title.

Hamster Sandwich I don't think it is a part of calculated move. I Think it is more to do with the common parlance. Since the use of guns in India is severely restricted by the general public, the general public and press included, generally use the term gun (bandook) for Shotgun/rifle/gun/revolver etc as a catch-all term that is easily understood by the common masses (as the Urdu word bandook) who may not be aware of the differences.
Thanks DiplomatTesterMan for agreeing to move. I would supported the actual term pellet shotgun over pellet gun, but then it will be different than what the sources are stating. Thinking about all this, just using the title crowd control that totally avoids such a confusion was the best way. As seen in the videos it is clear that almost always "pellet shot guns" are accompanied with tear gas. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Compliments

I thank the editors involved for the work they did in the past few days to bring this article to the knowledge base here. Lots of room to expand this article, and re-directs can send readers to the appropriate sub-sections as future additions are made. Well Done! Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich, Cheers and high 5 --DBigXrayᗙ 16:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Images to be considered for insertion into this article

I am placing these images here first, again because this is a controversial subject and the images are dramatic. Now that this article is about crowd control the scope increases to cover such images also -

Image S. No.
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 012 (2).jpg 1
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 013 (2).jpg 2
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 06 (2).jpg 3
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 017 (2).jpg 4
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 015 (2).jpg 5
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 03 (2).jpg 6
File:Indian Army Act on Kashmiris.jpg 7
File:Indian police attack on mourning ceremony of Muharram in Kashmir 018 (2).jpg 8
File:Police Protesters Clash after Eid Prayers in Kashmir 2 Sept 2017 8.jpg 9
File:Police Protesters Clash after Eid Prayers in Kashmir 2 Sept 2017 29.jpg 10
File:Police in Kashmir confronting violent protestors December 2018.jpg 11

The captions can of course be written to be more neutral and relevant to the article. One or two images need to be chosen for now. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • 9> 10 >7 > 3 > 6. In the order of priority. So 9 being most relevant followed by 10... We can all 3 as space permits. An image showing the CRPF mens holding gun in riot gear facing violent crowd would have been the ideal image for this article. Until we get that image, we can use these. Other than 7, 3, 6, the rest images does not add any value to the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and uploaded 9 and 10 --DBigXrayᗙ 22:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
9 & 10 are a good find! Clear views of the guns in both the pictures. Not sure how I managed to miss these in Commons. These will have to do until ones without the author tags are available. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan dont blame your good eyes, they ( 9, 10, 11) weren't on commons until I uploaded them on commons and created fresh categories. Since they are CC by SA 4 images, anyone can crop and re-upload them as long as the attributions are there. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes! I followed the Tansim News Agency link more carefully this time. Lots of images on there. And it clearly says at the bottom "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." Nice. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible DYK

DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3 and User:Hamster Sandwich What do you guys think about the DYk prospects of this article. Per Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria we have to nominate before 7 days i.e. 1 Jan. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Something along the lines of

Never hurts to try! Find an uninvolved editor who has involvement over at DYK and set the wheels in motion. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Hamster Sandwich, I created this thread to collect other ideas (ALTs) other than the one above, We will have better chances if we can come up with multiple options for DYK. Yes based on our recent experience with DYK where the three of us successfully got our DYK approved and all set to go on the main page on 29 Dec as per the schedule listed at Queue 6. I find that the editors at WP:DYK are very helpful and supportive. If we dont get other ideas we can nominate with just 1 for now and add more in coming days. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: Just one suggestion for now. Will try and think of others.
reping, forgot to sign @DBigXray: DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, this is an interesting DYK, Will nominate both. lets wait for couple of more days until 30 Dec before nominating, to think of more ideas. Also these DYK and sources need to be included in the article, although this (article improvement) can be done even after nomination since the DYK review normally takes couple of weeks time Kautilya3 any comments on the 2 above or a new DYK you can think of ? --DBigXrayᗙ 11:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I like the original hook. But the replacement needs to be covered in more detail in the article. The article is looking a lot better too, despite my initial scepticism. Good job! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Just one small doubt with the first DYK... the word "replaced" is misleading. "Minimised" would be more accurate, since pellet shotguns are still being used. "Replaced" sort of gives me the impressions that the DYK is saying that they have been removed altogether. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Or instead of "replaced" it could be "will replace". The source also dates to May 2018. Pellet guns are still being used. So they are yet to be removed entirely. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The word "replace" is indeed used in situations like this. See
The Sputnik News article, which is surprisingly well-informed, is from May 2018. I can't find any incidents since then where pellet guns have been employed. Nor can I find any Indian news source that corroborates the Sputnik News article. But articles like the above make it likely to be true.
I don't believe that pellet guns have been totally eliminated, but they will probably be used only as a last resort. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Above statements slightly inaccurate: Here is a recent usage as well as a story to corroborate...
1. A recent example of pellet gun usage from a BBC article dated 28 November 2018. Injured baby refuels India Kashmir pellet gun debate. "The plight of a 19-month-old child who suffered severe eye injuries after being hit by a pellet gun fired by security forces has renewed anger in Indian-administered Kashmir."link. Already added to the article.
2. Already added to the article, a Telegraph article from May 2018 to corroborate the story of Sputnik. link DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
As for the NDTV link.... pellets are being replaced... not pellet guns. The article in from 2017. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Though it does say "The Union government had then ordered for the introduction of chilli-based PAVA shells to replace the pellet shotguns." But still from 2017. So replaced is misleading... will replace is better. And again, note the difference between replacing pellet guns are compared to replacing metal pellets with rubber pellets. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I think "being replaced" might be a good compromise.
Note that the police unit handling the November 2018 incident doesn't seem to have had any alternative equipment. Logistics is still a problem. Just orders being issued doesn't mean that the matter ends there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, so after the compromise, I also think DBigXray's DYK is a better one (though the slingshot one is interesting in it's own way). For a bit of clarity a table - Please rephrase the DYKs as you think best, or if there are any ideas for new ones.

Sr No DYK Source
1 Did you know 1.1... that the security forces have replaced usage of Pellet guns with Rubber bullets and Chili grenades for Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. ☒N
DYK 1.2 ... that pellet guns are being replaced with rubber bullets and chili grenades for Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. ☒N
DYK 1.3 ... that pellet shotguns are being replaced with rubber bullets and chili grenades for Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir by the security forces. ☒N
DYK 1.4 ... that the security forces are replacing the usage of pellet guns with rubber bullets and chili grenades for Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. checkY		 Source
2 DYK... that security forces in India also use slingshots for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. Question? National Geographic
3 DYK 3.1... that security forces use tear gas for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir, but experienced protestors throw the tear gas shells back or cover them with wet gunny bags? ☒N
DYK 3.2 ... that during crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir tear gas shells are used, but experienced protestors often throw the shells back or cover them with wet gunny bags?		 source
4 ??? ???

Personally I like number 1 after it has been rephrased. Number 3 isn't needed really. Accordingly it can be nominated before 1st, not too many days left. As DBigXray said, changes can be made afterwards too. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think 2 is not a viable option either. Sling shots are a joke. The situations where pellet guns are needed are in a completely different ball park. DYK 1.4 seems the best of that bunch, but any of them is ok with me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
That was the whole point of number 2. Just to lighten this whole topic and using a fact at the same time. Anyway... 1.4 is good according to me too. @DBigXray:, you can go ahead and nominate for DYK if you also think 1.4 is good to go. (Placing number 2 is your call, since I am fine either way). Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The table is improving well, lets give it couple of more days, no hurry. I guess all three are worth submitting. KT3, I believe sling shot is indeed used, although I dont know how frequently. The big stones dont have longer range, that is where the sling shots come into picture, I have seen news footage of its usage by Police in Kashmir. The Hindustan Times source mention that they have reduced the priority order of the usage and indeed started using softnose tear shell and chilli bombs. as per the Director CRPF pellets are the final resort. Regarding the sources, I found a few that used "replace" word. here are these, notice the date of publication.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] --DBigXrayᗙ 20:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bukhari, Fayaz (6 September 2016). "Chilli-filled shells to replace pellet guns in Kashmir". Live Mint.
  2. ^ "To Minimise Damage By Pellet Guns In Kashmir, Comes This Modification". NDTV.com. NDTV. 2 March 2017.
  3. ^ "Chilli-filled grenades to replace pellet guns in J&K". The Hindu. 4 September 2016.
  4. ^ "Stink bombs may replace pellet guns to deal with stone-pelters in Kashmir". Business Standard India. 8 July 2017.
  5. ^ "Chilli bombs to tear gas, CRPF looks at alternatives to pellet guns in Kashmir". Hindustan Times. 25 April 2018. Retrieved 28 December 2018.
  6. ^ "No More Pellet Guns in Kashmir: Forces to Use Rubber Bullets, Chili Grenades". sputniknews.com. 1 May 2018.
  7. ^ "J&K police to get non-lethal riot control equipment". Social News XYZ. 28 December 2018.
DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3 did you guys have time to take a look at these sources. the last few are quite recent. I am planning to nominate the article in a few hours with 1.4, 2 and 3.2 as three ALTs, (if there are no other new ideas/copy edits for these alts)--DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: So with these sources, are you trying to show how the word "replace" has been used over time, even as early as 2016, but pellet guns still haven't been replaced; hence indicating that usage of the words "are replacing" is better than "replaced"?
Yes, 1.4, 2 and 3.2 are alright. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
yes, that is the correct inference, it is my understanding that the use of pellet guns has been greatly replaced (although not fully) with other options that cause less collateral damage, hence the injuries this year are lot lesser than in 2016, but yes, as a recent case suggest it was used. let's wait for Kautilya to respond --DBigXrayᗙ 14:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with DBigXray. There is no claim that the pellet guns will be totally retired from use. But they are being billed as a weapon of last resort. The three DYK hooks are good to go. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir, I also added an optional image from the article. DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3 Please watchlist DYK page to answer queries. Good luck. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3 all the three DYKs are reviewed as worth promoting, so we have to choose one of it.lets make a straw poll amongst ourselves. I think 1.4 is the best, followed by 3.2 followed by 2. Thoughts? --DBigXrayᗙ 01:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, 1.4 is the best choice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
checkY 1.4 good to go.
Just small one thing with the caption... "J&K policeman holding Pellet Gun during a violent clash"... shouldn't it be... "A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash"...OR "J&K policeman holding a Pellet Gun during a violent clash"...?" Or because it is a caption, the short form is better and the current caption is fine? Capitalisation of pellet gun is ok? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, "A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash" is correct, IMHO. I did not notice it before, thanks for pointing. I have corrected the DYK pic caption --DBigXrayᗙ 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:SshibumXZ, Thanks for your improvements on this article, What are your thoughts on the DYK. an editor said the article is not Neutral. I disagree plus I feel that although this is not a GA material yet, the Quality requirement for DYK is met. If you feel something needs to be added, please add or let me know here. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

UNCHR

Hi User:Kautilya3, As you can see in the DYK template, a user had suggested to include UNCHR comments into the article. The report did mention pellet guns and accordingly I have included this into the section, based on whatever was said on the report. I considered UNCHR and Amnesty as the 2 highly notable bodies/NGO whose criticism should be reflected into the article. The doctors comment although is topically relevant but we should choose what all can be added and what not. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, I choose the doctors, who are facing the problems and dealing with them. UNCHR wasn't even there. Their comment is just a boiler plate bureaucratic message that says nothing.
The user that commented at DYK template is entirely free to edit the article or make suggestions for edits. I don't see why the article should be degraded based on idle comments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
alright, What are your thoughts if we include all 3. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I added a sentence now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Rename article 2

For a crowd control in other parts of the world they use water cannons but here the Law Enforcement agencies use pellets and bullets and sometimes they take extra measures like arson, cutting down of apple trees and damaging private properties and transport. As said it is not a normal crowd control therefore the title has to be renamed to a meaningful term as I suggested above Kashmir Uprising or it can also be merged with other articles already existed like 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest or Kashmir_conflict.

The author has used the word rioters repeatedly in the lead section of the page, after reading the sources, I fail to understand who is the rioter? because these sources [1], [2], [3], [4], call them otherwise.

The article as the title suggests Crowd Control in Jammu and Kashmir has not a single incident reported from Jammu. All incidents reported are from Kashmir Valley, therefore why Jammu and Kashmir in the lead title.  MehrajMir (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The very first source of the article itself makes no mention of a "crowd", forget about "crowd control". Second source talks about "unarmed protesters", so I agree that the article is giving a false impression of controlling "normal crowd" than "protesting civilians" contrary to the 2nd source.[5] This article is a WP:SYNTH and the unnecessary expansion is tiresome to read. While a good option would be to rename it to Kashmir Uprising, alternatively it would be better to just create a new section into 2016–17 Kashmir unrest and merge the most important parts of this article over there as well as redirect. 103.218.236.31 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: This specific remaining to "Kashmir Uprising" suggestion doesn't make sense to me. Also removing the word "Jammu" from the title will be even more misleading than just saying "Kashmir". A single line in the page can help explain the distribution of incidents accordingly as per suitable sources. The sources which have been listed above by both editors can be considered for inclusion separately through WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DUE etc. Reacting to the second commenter, WP:SYNTH doesn't seem to apply here and "tiresome to read"... is WP:TIRESOME a policy? While commenting on this a Wikipedia essay comes to mind Wikipedia:Deny recognition, "Recognition is a motivation for vandalism. Trolls require food − don't feed the trolls." I really hope this discussion will be carried out in an informed and proper manner. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at another article [6] and you have WP:HOUNDed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with.
  • I think you two should cut the crap and accept that you are here because WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT as it is obvious for anyone.
  • All these suggestions/comments above are frivolous and devoid of any justifiable reason.
  • There is nothing misleading about the article title, this title has been decided after a long discussion and WP:Consensus among mulitple editors namely User:Hamster Sandwich, Dodger67, Kautilya3, DiplomatTesterMan and DBigXray. This title "Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir" has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.
  • This article cannot and should not be renamed to Kashmir Uprising because that article already exists at 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest.
  • This article cannot and should not be merged to 2016–17_Kashmir_unrest or Kashmir_conflict because these articles are already WP:TOOBIG and as per the WP:SIZERULE they will again have to be split per WP:SPINOFF into new articles that are WP:CFORKs.
  • Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, ("crowd control"+"kashmir") which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term, that is the article title.
  • The word riot is used mostly as a part of the internationally standard terms such as "riot control" / "riot gear" etc.
  • The name of the state is "Jammu and Kashmir" and this is the term that sources are using. You are welcome to add crowd control measures from Jammu and other regions as well.
  • IP, if you find it tiresome to read, then you are welcome to go and read something more interesting. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Most of the argument for changing the title of this article seems to boil down to "I don't like it" and "[the article] is tiresome". These are not very good reasons. As far as referring to citizen protests- when these situations escalate to violence or chaotic behavior from the involved parties, it can be properly termed as a "riot." But this article is called "Crowd control in..." not "Riot control in..." so as to be as inclusive and encyclopedic as possible. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • DBigXray, this subject is of my interest and I am more active on DYKs than you, so obviously that is not Wikihounding. Consensus can change.
  • The article can be renamed because current title is misleading and it can be also merged because there is not enough important content to keep here. Every disputed region sees some type of unrest time to time but you don't have to extensively describe their dealings with the protestors after labeling them as "crowd". After all reliable sources treat it as a part of "Kashmir unrest",[7][8][9][10] so why we should not treat this subject similarly by merging it to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest?
  • Your "quick google search" shows nothing compared to what we see after searching "protestors"+"kashmir"+"pellet". :::*Enough sources don't mention "Jammu and Kashmir"[11] but they are specific about "Kashmir Valley".[12][13][14]
  • Concerns about WP:SYNTH also appears to be valid because the sources have been misrepresented.
  • @Hamster Sandwich: Who suggested "Riot control" other than DBigXray? I hope you can quit distracting from the real issues.  MehrajMir (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Mehrajmir13, I would just like to make a small point related to merging it into 2016–17 Kashmir unrest and why this is problematic. The page currently clearly deals with "crowd control" related issues prior to 2016 (also)... see this line among other - "The Ministry of Home Affairs set up a task force following an order in September 2010 to recommend standard operating procedures to provide guidelines for crowd and riot control." Also... "Shortly afterwards, in 2010, the scientists said that the chilli grenade could be adapted into "civilian variants" for crowd control." This is all before 2016. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kautilya3:, what about the legal asepct? Curfews are not only when protests are directly taking place. They are a "general" crowd control/riot control measure, even enforced as a precaution or to dissuade. The current legal aspect seems small and right at the end, but this is one of the most important aspects. There are others laws too that are relevant to this. And since JK partly has its own laws (however similar), crowd control in India vs crowd control in JK is also legally different. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The laws here encompass entire J&K not only Kashmir (districts). DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We are WP:NOTNEWS. We are not obliged to cover everything that happens in the world, only what seems significant based on the reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3, which point are you addressing here when saying WP:NOTNEWS? (Just for clarity asking) Does the WP:NOTNEWS relate to the legal aspect I am talking about, or was NOTNEWS for comments above that. (Just for clarity need to confirm).DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, your objection to using "Kashmir protests" in the title is that it doesn't cover the preventive curfews etc., to which my response is that we have to go by the signifiance as represented in the RS. Legal aspects can be covered fine. I see them as being part of crowd control. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3, oh if it seemed like I objected I apologize. I was only trying to discuss this legal point and just put it forward. I haven't outright objected against any renaming other than "Kashmir Uprising". See my section below which is asking other to consider new names too. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
All these options are here:

@Mehrajmir13 In an earlier comment that you made in this thread, you asked, "The author has used the word rioters repeatedly in the lead section of the page, after reading the sources, I fail to understand who is the rioter?" My response to that was to provide an acceptable definition of the descriptor "riot" - and by extension- "rioter" in the context of this article. For you to infer/claim that I was distracting is disingenuous, I was merely disagreeing with you. Different thing altogether, I can assure you.

To return to another point which is being discussed in this thread is to rename the article so as to better reflect the current conditions and the most recent past, whereas the title was actually constructed and planned so as to provide an overarching historical perspective to the subject as pertains to the region in an encyclopedic (read all encompassing) aspect. This was discussed from the earliest drafts of this particular article.

If you have additional material that could be added (from reliable sources, of course) please feel free to make your additions here, under the appropriate sub-section. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi all, since several comments have been made since my last comment, I will address all the comments made so far.
  • @Mehrajmir13, it seems you yourself dont know what you want. Do you want a rename or do you want a merge ? Based on the comments so far, it seems all you want is to, stall this DYK and get rid of this article by any possible way. So far none of the justification or concerns raised by you have managed to convince anyone.
  • "The article can be renamed because current title is misleading" What is misleading in the title to you ?
  • "it can be also merged because there is not enough important content to keep here.", The article is already 37KB in size and there is enough material available to further expand.
  • "so why we should not treat this subject similarly by merging it to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest" Have you even read my reply above or you are simply copy pasting your same line again and again ? This article cannot and should not be merged to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest or Kashmir conflict because these 2 articles are already WP:TOOBIG and as per the WP:SIZERULE they will again have to be split per WP:SPINOFF into new articles that are WP:CFORKs. ( if something in this line full of wikilinks, is not clear to you please feel free to ask me and I will elaborate it for you to understand. )
  • Moreover when you say it should be merged with 2016–17 Kashmir unrest, are you saying that no stone pelting or crowd control ever happened before 2016 and after 2017 ? if it is still happening then obviously it makes absolutely no sense to merge it there. as DiplomatTesterMan rightly pointed this out to you we have examples from 2010 as well as 2018. so clearly the subject covered in this article is much larger in scope than the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest
  • It is clearly false, to claim that stone pelting and tear gas, only happens in Kashmir. Here are news article about Jammu, notice the title
  • Kautilya3, as I have already given example of instances of tear gas and violent protest in Jammu region. It further justifies that the article title remains J&K so as to cover the incidents in the entire state. DiplomatTesterMan's point about the rules and SOPs is also a strong point on why the scope of this article must not be limited to only Kashmir region. it makes no sense to create Separate articles for Crowd_control_in_Jammu and Crowd_control_in_Kashmir when both areas are in the same state and covered under the same government and rules.
  • DiplomatTesterMan your titles dont cover all the cases. Let me post some more examples to prove my point why these titles are not useful.
  • Based on all these examples it is clear that it is not just protests or riots but several other occasions where crowd control measures are being used. The title Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir clearly covers all these cases.
  • As Hamster Sandwich points out, the article title was being discussed since the article was a draft and it is naive to claim that this current title Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir is "only" from DBigXray. The fact is that the title has been chosen after consensus and as Hamster Sandwich already explained, the title was actually constructed and planned so as to provide an overarching historical perspective to the subject as pertains to the region in an encyclopedic (read "all encompassing") aspect.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Above Mehrajmir13 has mentioned a source - "Senior J&K Police Official Accuses Security Forces of Vandalising His Home" - The Wire. A line or two can be chosen related to this along the lines.

“Vandalism by security forces at KP road Anantnag. Property worth lacs including windows and window panes of my residential house damaged. Houses/vehicles and shops smashed and attacked by rods and rocks. This is for the 8th time since 2008 that my residential house has been damaged in such a way,” Bakshi wrote on Facebook. Speaking to The Wire, Bakshi, who was recently transferred to the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), said his house is situated on the highway and thus repeatedly becomes a target.

I think a new section for this should be put. And the size of that section is according to DUE of course. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

But now thinking about this more, this seems a bit problematic. Won't this be SYNTH... this needs to be considered carefully and see how to incorpoarte in this current title location or a new one, but irrespective of the title, is needed bcz of DUE and BALANCE for such a topic.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
To my eye it seems like a huge chunk of text taken straight from a news source. I'm sure that if an "on-the-spot" reporter were so inclined they could make additions to this article on a minute by minute basis as events are transpiring, but as someone pointed out above "WP:NOTNEWS". Additionally, by naming a particular person in an article there might be privacy issues regarding WP policies. We would have to check that out for sure before such an addition could be made. Thorny questions, to be sure! Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
In additions to the problems pointed by Hamster Sandwich , there are more problems. DiplomatTesterMan did the police officer file a case ? This event appears to have happened during a violent clash. The police claims protestors did this. The protestors claim police did this. Wikipedia cannot be a referee in this kind of situations. Unless there has been an indictment or conviction of policemen in that case, these are just allegations. And there are many many allegations floating around everywhere. Only the Major and notable issues should be added into the article. I am against adding this into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"Crowd control...Riot control..." in Kashmir" vs "Kashmir valley" vs "Jammu and Kashmir" etc in the title

I am creating a new section for clarity because this is getting confusing. I request everyone to discuss this issue here in this section. (Only this point, let's try to remain focused otherwise this is going to go all over the place)

I would like to raise a general point first related to the page name without stating sources.

There are certain SOPs followed by the security forces in a nation related to crowd control. Here since these SOPs directly stem from JK related issues, that is why this page is "Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir" and not say "Crowd control in India". Another point, the SOPs mentioned in "Crowd control in JK" are also followed in Jammu and Leh too. So here we are not only talking about the riots or the protestors, but the actual processes which also encompass these regions. Now coming to sources, I think we need a good source that identifies the distribution or riots between all districts in the entire state. Only then can this be an informed decision. Merely stating one or two or three source won't help here as well as the entire comparative statistics. I will look for some too myself. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering why instead of this article we can have something called "Protests in Jammu and Kashmir", or "Unrest in Jammu and Kashmir". Such an article would provide a brief history of major periods of unrest, their causes and then have a section for tactics too.VR talk 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read the discussion thread #Rename article 2 Which is a duplicate of this thread title to " understand why "
We already have articles Kashmir conflict, 2010 Kashmir unrest and 2016–17 Kashmir unrest that deal with the subject.
As its title suggests, this article has a specific and well defined scope that it addresses. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Live fire

Clearly live fire (i.e. shooting at protestors) is also used as a tactic of crowd control. Its quite POV if we don't include that in this article.VR talk 18:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Objections to DYK nomination

Intentionally or not, the DYK hooks were constructed in a way that subtly advocates violence (I see no good defense for the original hook: "that the security forces are replacing the usage of pellet guns with rubber bullets and chili grenades...", because the security forces could be anybody, and pellet gun is the only wikilink among weapons). I proposed an ALT3 that highlights with wikilinks the less lethal alternatives. I also would like to insist that the persons responsible for using these weapons be identified in the hook. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening Line

Originally

By Susan

Currently

Proposed

Hi Susan, does MOS allows wikilinking the bolded text ? I am not sure, if it is allowed it can make the opening line less awkward. suggestions welcome. FYI User:DiplomatTesterMan--DBigXrayᗙ 07:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds perfect. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

CRPF deploys 500 women commandoes in Kashmir to deal with female stone pelters

A reference to consider for inclusion in the article:
CRPF deploys 500 women commandoes in Kashmir to deal with female stone pelters - (1 July 2018, The Times of India) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Good find DiplomatTesterMan. Should be included. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but please don't use the term "commandoe" for riot control police personnel. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and added it. Noted Kautilya, and I didn't use the word commando. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Remove quote from article?

Should this quote on the page stay? Or should it be removed? Unless other similar references can be found, I think the quote should be removed. Maybe if there are other similar references, those references can be combined into a paraphrased paragraph to convey the same instead of just one long quote. (But not sure since it is a good source.)

A senior security official in Kashmir told The Washington Post:

There is an orchestrated campaign against pellet guns precisely because it is doing the work of effectively controlling the violent mob protests. When there is a determined militant crowd hurling sharp stones at us and [they] break our helmets, shields and bones, then we need to act. Tear-gas shells are not very effective because protesters use wet cloth to cover their eyes and are back in action in two minutes. (Source)

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be removed and summarised in one sentence. It is argumentative, and not encyclopedic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Why I nominated this for deletion.

I think I need to explain briefly why I nominated this article for deletion but am now working on it again. In the DYK nom, Susan had used the words "A nit". I did a Google search for this and the first results that show are "the egg or young form of a louse or other parasitic insect, especially the egg of a human head louse attached to a hair." and "a foolish person". Now I have nothing against parasitic insects or even foolish people but it did get to me especially with me also misunderstanding what Susan was trying to point out. So if you combine this with my confusion that led up to this as explained in the above section (Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Points_raised_in_the_DYK), related to how I thought the point was for the lead, rather than hook, and also my overreaction and lack of time then (as could be seen from trying to wrap up the DYK nom too fast) I apologize. This is a good article which cannot pass an AFD with stupid reasons like I had given at the time. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The word nit means to me: "short for nit-pick. ...a small change that may not be very important, but is technically correct." Sorry for the misunderstanding. Good luck with your to do list above. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK Rule 4a requirements

DYK Rule 4a: "Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy. Articles on living individuals are carefully checked to ensure that no unsourced or poorly sourced negative material is included. Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." So to sort out these points the following analysis is being made:
I copy pasted the entire article in its current format to a new page in my user space called: User:DiplomatTesterMan/Crowd control in JK analysis.
In this analysis I tried to colour code the text into various categories as elaborated below:

  • Green = Signifies neutral text
  • Blue = Signifies UN related text (UN sources that are supporting India not part of this)
  • Orange = Indian govt statement that clearly lean in favour of India
  • Violet = All other Indian govt stuff/SOPs etc
  • Red = Deaths, injuries, blindings and related content

According to the analysis I get the following:

  • Green = 726 words
  • Blue = 96 words
  • Orange = 132 words
  • Violet = 812 words
  • Red = 475 words


Further,

  • Orange + Violet = 132 words + 812 words = 944 words (Indian govt/SOPs/etc)
  • Blue + Red = 96 words + 475 words = 571 words (Killings, blindings, death of a child)
  • Green = 726 words (Neutral in general)


So according to this, 571 words in the article, in red, either talk about blindings or protestors being killed, with mention even of a small child etc. (Now in reality nothing can balance this out, but I think in all practically here we must come to a decision as is being made on all Wikipedia pages.) 571 words is ~25% of the prose length of the article. Is that not enough? Also please consider, that the 25% is related to lines such as "One of the youngest pellet gun victims is a 19-month-old child, Heeba Jan". The weightage of this is really heavy. (At least for me. I was the one who included this.) (This analysis has its flaws I am sure. I counted the text twice in MS word but still may have made an error. The colour coding may not be appreciated for some lines. But irrespective of this, this POV can be sorted out clearly through this.) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Word count is meaningless when only one side is represented. You did not mention Pakistan until 1) I asked for background, and 2) I added the UN report. This article was structurally conceived as one-sided by its authors. I will check back in a few days. It is not my job to coax you guys into a fair article. That is your job. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
SusanLesch, "Word count is meaningless when only one side is represented." - I have written sort of the same but how can it be meaningless when over 500 words are devoted to the civilians and Indian brutality? How can you negate the five hundred words about the killing and blindings, or little less discluding what you added. (Are you talking about the other side being Pakistan here? Why should Pakistan be included in this?) We must come to some decision about what is reasonable. Word count is part of that decision, not the full decision in itself. "I added the UN report" - Kautilya had added mention of the UN in another way previously too, a line but still it was pointed out. This is not being "hidden". I don't have bias against this. I think I understand how meaningful that report is to you Susan, but for me that UN report is meaningless in terms of how they prepared the document as far I understand it and in this particular article. It has been added and I have no objections to it now. (This is my perspective and I am trying just explain why I have no hesitation in adding more lines from the UN in different ways, but the UN report has little weightage in this particular article as far as I am concerned. This is objective weightage. Even statements from Amnesty India are more impactful to me here.
"It is not my job to coax you guys into a fair article. That is your job." So then I request @Kautilya3:, @DBigXray: to help out. I have my own ideas about say introducing a new section "INDIAN EXCESSES IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR" since there are enough sources for this. If no one has any objections, I will go ahead and add a section related to general excesses of the Indian security forces rather that just pellet gun specific. Statements from Kashmiri politicians can be used also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and added a line - "Indian security forces have often been criticised for using excessive force in Jammu and Kashmir in relation to controlling protests". Created a new section for this as well as added it to the lead.
Other than this I am also going to try and understand why Sputnik News is a bad source for this, as SusanLesch is trying to point out. This will take sometime. I will give this article a pause and wait for further inputs from everyone. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This may have no connection but I have had it with this. Really. I am trying to do this in good faith by I don't like this. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratik Sinha The delete nomination just now says the person support UN. This is immediately after i say I don't like a UN report here. The timing of this is uncanny and scary. I give up. I am discussing at the teahouse how to impose a ban or sanction on myself from JK related articles on Wikipedia. I give up. And this time I am serious. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan just made an update that goes a long way to creating balance. Well done! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Points raised in the DYK

I am creating this section for clarity. I have copy pasted the points raised in the DYK nom by Susan. I hope I haven't missed any point which she had put down. Action taken for each point will be added below the respective point. If the disucssion for a specific point becomes too large, for further clarity, it can be shifted to a new section on this page. I have added "" Working"" for clarity again, and will be changed to done  Done once Susan confirms her doubts have been addressed. I hope this way forward is a neutral as possible:

  • A nit: I asked that the word Indian please be added to the hook, so the reader could understand who is using these weapons. Instead I got the reply, "It already says that."
I just realised that I misread what you had written SusanLesch. Please note that when I wrote "It already says that." I thought you meant lead, I had made an edit to the lead of the article beforehand and added the words "by security forces" with the edit summary saying "security forces to lead again for more clarity". I note that I only added "security forces" to the lead again and not "Indian security forces", because I had convinced myself at the time that adding Indian there once more would be over-doing it and I couldn't understand why you wanted the word Indian in the lead again. But now that I am reading that you wanted Indian in the hook, I think that was a really good suggestion. Also, please note that I was the one who suggested ALT2 "ALT1" which used the words "security forces in India". So I was not trying to hide this point at all. Just one big confusion on my part here. I acted stubbornly and would request you to consider the overlook on my part. Please take this in good faith. And now that the first three hooks have been cut, and the alt hook you have, and I don't think I need to put Indian in the lead again in the live ammunition line, can I consider this point as sorted out and mark as done? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Just for your reference to clarify that I was not opposed to the idea of "Indian" in the hook at all here is the edit suggestion I made for ALT 1 dated 27 December 2018 (LINK) where I suggest = Did you know... that security forces in India also use slingshots for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir.. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done
  • Personal note: I don't know what side the authors are on, if any. By the way, I've had my own problems with DYK (I need to watch copyright, every time). You have a lot of knowledge to offer, and there is no doubt this conflict in Kashmir is a sad, sixty year-old breakdown. I wish I understood why Hari Singh didn't help in 1947. You asked the previous reviewers to give you reasons. I can't do that either, but here are my notes from yesterday. Certainly, I made mistakes.
 Done
 Done
Hi, DBigXray. My concern is in my first reaction, that we are not showing a "spirit of deescalation". Adding that photo caption without any context appears to normalize (and not marginalize) the use of pellet guns. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
My objection doesn't relate to this DYK nomination. Apologies, and marking done. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind reply. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done
 Done
 Done
 Done
  • If you had demonstrated an interest in Crowd control there would be a section on India there. (I edited out someone's idea of a red link for curfew, which has been a Wikipedia article since 2003.) For just one precedent, BBC News can explain seven different scenarios for Kashmir in one article. I would have liked to see you help some of these existing articles rather than spread into yet another new one. I concur with and follow the lead of WBG.
 Done
A analysis had been made related to Rule 4a (linked in this section below). On analysis through colour coding and categorization of the current text in the article, it has been found that ~25% of the content is about blindings, deaths, injuries etc caused due to Indian security forces. I request a clarification related to whether the current DYK nominator SusanLesch thinks Rule 4a and Promotion still hold? Accordingly content can be added or removed or status quo can be maintained. (I may have made errors in the analysis, maybe even major ones, which is open for correction) DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

User:SusanLesch and DiplomatTesterMan Please accept my sincere thanks for your efforts in improving the article. I have made some further non controversial improvements (refs, attributions, elaborations). SusanLesch, please do take a look and let me know if you have any objections.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

security forces not police

as of the last edit on the page, [15] user User_talk:DBigXray reverted an edit which had the word "security forces" and replaced it with "police" stating "(c/e both CRPF and State police are Police forces)"

I don't see this as appropriate because police as the user mentioned are CRPF and JK police but "security forces" is the appropriate term in this context because its not only CRPF and JKP but also indian army at times but also because this term "security forces" is being used by news publications like greaterkashmir, one of the most widely circulated daily in indian administered kashmir as evidenced by [16] and also by Times of india [17] fox news [18] and even New york times [19].

As such, it is requested that someone else revert the edit because i don't want to start an edit war. I just pointed out this inconsistency, someone should decide on the merits of it and take decisions if required. Mhveinvp (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

you are claiming that I "reverted an edit" ? whose edit did I revert ? this edit is not a revert. This is an edit (and not a revert) that I made in my editorial capacity. Crowd control in Kashmir is the mandate of police forces and not army. The army conducts counter militancy operations but the civilian law enforcement is always handled by the two police agencies. So if you are reading a news article about anti terrorist operation you will see the term security forces. But when the subject is crowd control or law enforcement (as it is the case here in this article) the term police is used instead. Eg below [20]

A member of the Indian police wields a slingshot against protesters. More often the police use pellet..

--DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Page name

"Crowd control" seems a rather tame way to discuss the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. I suggest moving the page to Riot control in Jammu and Kashmir. Yoninah (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not mind such a change, but then some editors in the threads on this page have said that these are not riot rather violent "protests". So crowd control was the most acceptable title (with respect to J&K) that is in common parlance in the media. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir/Archive_1&oldid=1235564304"