Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

• Talks upto February 2006

Darkness Shines (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2000 (UTC)

Archived

In view of large size of the page, I have archived the talks up to February 2006. --Bhadani 14:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted sections and references

On April 23, the "Militancy and military" and the intro were deleted [2] with no explanation. Looks like vandalism to me, as I see no discussion about deleting this, so I have restored the text. Also, have converted the references to the new format. There are a number of them listed in the references section, but I can't find used anywhere in the text. These were used in much older versions of the article (e.g. [3]), but no longer used. Not sure if there is any need to keep them listed in the references section? -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On May 17, the "Statistics" section was deleted. Also, a lot of POV stuff and unattributed reversals of meaning were done. There was really far too much stuff to go through it all to find the gems in the rough, so I reverted it all. —BozoTheScary 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous figures

I don't know who counted the exact number of casualties but there are some odd figures about number of casualties. Surely those figures cannot be exact. Either provide the source or I will remove them. Also how on earth India is doing ethnic cleansing?? Who claims that? Provide an independent source, not a link to a propaganda website. Anand Arvind 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Anand Arvind 09:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor. Please provide link to a reliable source which actually accuses Indians of carrying out 'ethnic cleansing'. Its just ridiculous. Which source uses the word 'ethnic cleansing'??Anand Arvind 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to HR violations. It is still not necessary to simply delete all mentions. The link that talks about HR violations is in the references. Please check before you keep reverting. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.. Anand Arvind 18:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Solutions

I have blanked this section because much of the content there is either original research or is a direct copy from BBC article it cites which by the way violates their copyright. Infact I like such a section, but not here, but in Kashmir dispute. Anand Arvind 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename and change the article

I suggest renaming the article and breaking it up into sections that discuss both terrorism and insurgency as well as state sponsered repression. Since there is ample documentation on both (Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch etc.) there shouldn't be any problem in being able to accomplish this). Tombseye 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind including documented evidence, but I object to highly POV phrases like 'state oppression'. I can hardly think of any non-Pakistani source which uses this phrase regarding India. On the other hand almost every source including pakistani sources call violent suicide attacks on civilians 'terrorism'. Why use euphemisms? Why not call it what it is. If these suicide attacks aren't terrorism then terrorism doesn't exist at all. Anand Arvind 23:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, how biased are you? Yes, I agree that when innocent civilians are targeted, that is terrorism, but generally fighting soldiers is considered an insurgency AND what do you call this from Amnesty International (which, last I checked, is not a Pakistani source): [4] And then they, of course, condemn what the militants/terrorists have done: [5] Also, what about all of these reports: [6] and this from Human Rights Watch: Troops continue to be responsible for arbitrary detention, torture, and custodial killings. There has been a disturbing rise in extrajudicial executions. Security forces regularly report gun battles where “foreign militants” are killed. But there have been persistent allegations that such incidents are faked and that alleged militants, taken into custody, are routinely executed.[7] and [8]. I don't know what you call it, but it looks like state repression to me. Since you don't like euphemisms, come up with something that describes this stuff then. State overzealous responses? Tombseye 03:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I urge contributers here to adhere to NPOV remarks. The article is full of Pakistani bias and is trying to justify terrorism by citing police brutalities. If you look hard enough, you will find almost every country in amnesty internationals report. The point is India does not support this as official policy while Pakistan does officially support terrorists operating in Kashmir ofcourse morally (duh!) while recognizing that they are involved in acts of terror. The article is full of anti-India bias. I would urge you to do some research on the subject and find out the staggering differences in the scale. Indo Kid04 04:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said you will find every country in there Sweden [[9]] Mexico [[10]] Does this mean that there is serious human rights violations going on these countries?

By the way look at Pakistan [[11]]

You will agree that the term 'state oppression' can be applied if a state follows abuse as its official policy, which India clearly does not. By the way, the watchdog actually lauds India for the human rights record in the opening paragraph. Could you find any non pakistani source at all which actually uses the phrase 'state repression' by India? I bet not. There is a reason for that. Don't believe in all kinds of junk you find on websites. Indo Kid04 04:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well the problem is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ultimately. As I asked before, what's the alternative to saying state repression? And unlike Sweden, there is a border dispute and other baggage with the Kashmir issue that is more akin to the Chiapas rebellion in Mexico. Amnesty Int'l condemns both, whereas you guys seem to want to only condemn the militants/terrorists and overlook the state sponsored activities that clearly violate human rights on a regular basis. One can actually condemn both terrorism and state sponsored repression or draconian measures or whatever it is we call it. and come on, most states don't do official instructions. It's all implied that state repression will be overlooked in the name of pursuing state policy or control. You think Bush ordered the guards at Abu Ghraib to torture prisoners? Maybe, but we'll never know because it was never 'officially' ordered. This article needs both sides to be represented or it needs to go. Bottom-line. Tombseye 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Was Iraq a part of the U.S.A? No. Contrarily, the state of Jammu and Kashmir is a part of the Indian Union and anyone from that state who tries to disturb India's unity and integrity cannot be called a freedom-fighter. The state of Kashmir has a Muslim Chief Minister and a mostly Muslim Cabinet so the militants' arguement that Kashmiri Muslims are being denied their rights by the government cannot hold hold true. The Indian Army does not condone human-rights violations and it would be an absurdity to assume it does, based on a few stray incidents of violence committed by stressed-out defence-personnel. If this were true, how do you explain the large amount of Kashmiri Muslims joining the Kashmir Police and the CRPF? Prasi90 05:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point is that it's the Indian govt. POV that it's not a freedom struggle as many of the local Kashmiris think otherwise.[12] I'm not saying it is or isn't, but the fact remains that India's unity has little to do with what the people want, mostly independence it seems, and so from the Indian POV it's an insidious insurgency, while from the POV of many of the Muslim Kashmiris, it's a freedom struggle so it can be considered as such regardless. As for appointments to high posts, of course they are going to have Muslims in high posts, but these are people who do not, for example, want a separate state and the state is a Muslim majority region so naturally, to, at the very least, give the veneer of democracy, Muslims are in high positions. That aside, a few incidents seems like a huge understatement from what I've seen and what I've heard from Kashmiri ex-pats myself back in LA. Tombseye 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the original post in this section: I agree that the content of the article does not accurately reflect the title, so we should change either the title or the content. The title is "Terrorism in Kashmir" but the current scope of the article goes beyond terrorism to include the entire insurgency (actions of militants, actions of the military, peace talks etc.) I would suggest renaming the article to "Conflict in Kashmir". --Lee Hunter 12:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Conflict in Kashmir should then include the First Kashmir War, Second Kashmir War, Kargil War, Siachen Glacier skirmish and well every conflict in the area. That is the scope of Indo-Pakistani Wars article which already exists.

It is the content that needs alteration, but some people don't want to change the words like "militants" to terrorists because it seems POV (among other issues) and therefore the article sounds less about Terrorism in Kashmir and more like something else and drags resulting in this confusion. Idleguy 12:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Then how about "Insurgency in Kashmir" if we need something more specific? --Lee Hunter 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly that is a better solution as wikipedia does not support the loose usage of the term terrorism without a lot of referencing anyway and Insurgency in Kashmir is pretty accurate. Nor would it be fair to not include the other side's views. And if that is not acceptable, then a separate article will no doubt crop up and with good reason. Tombseye 16:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It is neutral and fair. Some actions are terrorism but according to the Indian government all the actions are terrorism. So a neutral title is good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On My 1 2006, militants from the Lashkar-e-Toiba made 31 Kashmiri villagers line up against a wall and gunned them down, killing 22 and injuring the others [:http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Militants_kill_22_villagers_in_Kashmir]. Streetside executions such as this can only be as termed terrorism, and those responsible as terrorists. Prasi90 10:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been urging time and again to be more specific about 'the other sides point of view'. Again, I am in favor of including documented facts from credible independent sources and not links to propaganda websites. Again, we don't have to include any sides point of view, after all I have refrained from including links from Kashmiri Pandits websites. We should only present what comes from a credible independent source, about the violance. I think the title is justified since many of these incidences of violance completely qulify as terrorism. Most of the organizations like lashkar-e-Toiba etc. behind this violance are identified as terrorist organizations by most countried including Pakistan. On the other hand I believe given the lack of evidence, the phrase 'state suppression' is completely unwarranted here (see below). No country other than ofcourse Pakistan or a credible an independent source uses that phrase regarding India. Most of the links posted below infact laud India about human rights record, and that is something that should be included in Kashmir related article since that is from reliable sources. Propaganda brouchers from lashkar-e-Toiba should be included so that we know what both sides stand for. Indo Kid04 07:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree as well regarding specificity etc. The links I was using were strictly from human rights groups and people who aren't from either country as well, just to be really on the safe side. I'll do what I can later as I'm embroiled in real life work and trying to get Pashtun people to become a featured article and sometimes working on John Carpenter and other articles. According to wikipedia rules, anytime the term terrorism is used we need to specify who thinks they are terrorists (as with the lashkar, we can say many countries including Pakistan think they are terrorists or something to that effect). However, the title of this article is really not tenable unlike the war on terror which has a great deal of press and notriety whereas terrorism in kashmir doesn't. A better title would be Insurgency in Kashmir, which can then discuss all the various terrorist events and differing views. Ciao for now. Tombseye 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with renaming the article so that it includes both miltancy and military actions. There is a clear Indian bias in the article right now because India calls all the militants "terrorists" so it's important to also mention the other side of the coin about military operations that have killed Kashmiris. And I agree with using neutral and independant sources, which means that the government statistics section should at least be removed. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure on renaming, since there are several articles in Wikipedia with "Terrorism in..." like Terrorism against Israel in 2005, Terrorism in India, Pakistan etc. If this is renamed on the basis of POV, then so should those articles whose titles are equally POV. --Idleguy 08:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that the current scope of the article goes beyond terrorist incidents. I don't have a problem with "Terrorism in Kashmir" as a title, but all the general stuff about the insurgency in Kashmir should then be moved to a new article. Otherwise we are reinforcing the idea that the Kashmir insurgency = terrorism. --Lee Hunter 19:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes however in Kashmir it is different because it is a disputed territory and there are both sides involved. In India and Pakistan it is Terrorism inside a country. In Indian controlled Kashmir there are military personnel involved that are also violent. So the best thing is to give both sides separate articles. I agree with Lee about moving the . And the article deals with violence which happens in Indian-controlled Kashmir, so it should be renamed to "Terrorism in Indian controlled Kashmir".--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Insurgeny refers to the actions of Pakistani militants from across the Line of Control. Since these actions almost always result in the deaths of innocent civilians, they can only be termed terrorism. Prasi90 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So do military actions which have resulted in more civilian deaths than separatists accused of crossing the LOC. And that's pov anyway so the article should give both sides. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that "stat" backed by a reliable neutral source? Also the separatists are not "accused of crossing the LOC" by anyone, it is nearly accepted by many countries including some of Pakistan's allies. Only Pakistan claims otherwise. Ineffect your statements tend to be slightly POV anyways on this matter IMHO. --Idleguy 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well wikipedia is not for nationalism IMHO. I don't agree that India is only there to keep peace and it's incorrect to simply blame everything on separatists or Pakistan. Both sides have to be blamed and military is clearly responsible. The allegations are not only by Pakistan but Human rights organizations based in countries that are India's allies [13] [14]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia to not to further a religious nationalism either AFAIK. Both those website's stats - apart from being dated by a decade - don't say that Indian military is responsible for more deaths than the militants. That was what you had said above. What it does confirm is that Indian Army too is responsible for HR abuses which is already mentioned in the articles in Wikipedia. There is already a lot of factual errors like stating nearly three-fourth (700,000) of India's army is in Kashmir etc. We could save ourselves a lot of time and energy by not adding any more vague statements or "stats". --Idleguy 07:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree on the issue of "stats". We can start by removing the statistics section. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 07:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if we had a poll on that. Whether to remove/retain/move the said statistics section. Idleguy 08:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Poll will not be fair. There are more Indians. in numbers...polls will only enforce Indian POV. So Polls will be totally unfair. Many of the stats do not have sources verifying them. If you are adding stats, you must also add How many Kashmiris were killed by Indian Army, Rapes, Tortures, Kidnappings, People killed in fake encounters and things of that sort.

Many links used are also propaganda Kashmiri sides with only one POV. Using them as referrals brings bias to this article.

The reference for Statistics point to a page which has taken reference from mostly biased and propaganda sites apart from State Dept..so if you want to put stats, you have to specifically say which stats you have taken from state department.

In light of that, Stats section should be removed or updated with NPOV.

This article needs to be updated in other following ways:

1 - Removal of biased / non-neutral References and thier claims. 2 - Addition of section "Terrorism by Indian Army". 3 - Renaming the Article to "Attrocities in Kashmir" - This bring in a more wide meaning and can include the actions militants and military. TY ~~

Pro-Indian

This article is biased and represents pro-Indian View.

For example “India says that over the last two years, a militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[6] Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller militant group, Al Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning.”

I dont see how that can be pro-Indian, when it is support by a reference. However, be bold and make necessary changes, keeping Wikipedia POV rules in mind -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}04:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Title

This title violates policy (WP:WTA#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter) so i will change it to Violence in Kashmir. Violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an example of this. IP198 23:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

===pro india NO indian moderaters please=== i have provided so many sources about india human rights violations in kashmir yet some how alledged human rights abuses about pakistan without ANY source appears we need NON indian moderaters please i have provided reliable sources from BBC yet some some indians come along and delete it.

My two cents too

The index of the article needs to be changed. In particular, we have two consecutive sections titled "Human Rights violations by Indian army" and "Human Rights violations by militants". I think every level headed reader will agree that the official Indian army should not be compared directly to terrorist organizations. The latter section should be named "Violent acts attributed to militants"--- Abhishek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.43.204 (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Such lengthy and animated discussions are interesting to read! I do marvel at the talkative nature of all my friends here. Are we building sum total of the human knowledge by writing the factual position or wasting our efforts to building a so-called consensus, which may be far removed from the reality and of no use to the posterity. Surely, under international law, insurgent elements of Kashmir do enjoy certain rights, provided the comity of nations recognize them as insurgents. As far as the legality of the matter stands, these elements are committing treason to the sovereign state (that is, India) of which they are a part as recognized in terms of the de jure as well as de facto position of the international law. --Bhadani 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One more request: While reading the foregoing “discussion”, I saw that a user has been labeled as a sock-puppet of another user. I was searching for the same as I had received a mail from the user who has been so charged. He wanted to leave wikipedia with a clean name – I do not doubt his good faith and do believe that the charging him to create sock-puppet/s is surely not fair. In my considered opinion, we should not immediately come to the conclusion that a particular account is a sock-puppet, and established editor/s should not be charged and maligned in this fashion with threats of blocking the accounts. I request my friend User:Anonymous editor to kindly offer his comments on the issue and clear the name of that particular user from this charge. --Bhadani 16:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course Bhadani. I am not trying to malign any particular user, however that account is clearly a sockpuppet and I request that it not be used any further by who ever is using it. Although it does not have to be the user who left it is clearly someone with a bad objective here who is blaming me of many different things and it isn't helping the user who left; instead it is disrupting wikipedia and is making this problem more uncivil than needed. Judging by the users activity he is not a new user and he seems to dislike me an awful lot so it would be nice for him/her to stop. I wish good luck for the user who left and hoping the rest of us can make sure that can reach a good solution and I think we are coming closer to that. Bhadani I request you to also help with this article if you can to make it so that the article shows that both sides are responsible. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I came to this page on a request by a particular user, and I also placed my comments. I am aware that in live topics like this one, each user, including me, may be acting with different levels of infatuation. I would try to do what ever is possible - albeit I know that doing justice to "live socio-political issues with ramifications encompassing innumerable aspects" is very difficult: no one is infallible, including me. --Bhadani 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay Bhadani.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Deepak Gupta asserts that Paln is not his sockpuppet. Anonymous editor has made such an accusation here as well as at another page without assuming good faith. Anonymous editor is right in saying that it could be a sockpuppet of someone as well. It could be a strawman sockpuppet as well. As admins are expected to be exemplary examples of users, I request anonymous editor to file a WP:RCU on paln to determine if it is a sockpuppet of Deepak gupta or strawman puppet of anonymous editor or sock puppet of some other user he suspects. If he is not ready to do this, he should apologise unconditionally to both the users on their talkpages, this talkpage and the Wikiquette alerts talkpage. I think this is a fair and acceptable solution. --Gurubrahma 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No I do not wish to make this situation worse than it is. This problem is hopefully resolved and trying to forcefully urge me to apologize because of an accusation, even if it is denied by the user or proven true, is not going to help this at all. Clearly you have been requested to interject on this problem as Bhadani was. I can request apologies for several things that users have done but I don't ask for it. I already wished him luck and that is what I would say to any editor with this problem. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Normally, the onus of proving an accusation lies on the accuser. However, in the present context and circumstances of the matter, in my opinion, the matter (of a user accusing the other user as sock-puppet/s) may please be treated as closed in view of the above discussion. I believe the air has now been cleared, and I am sure that the issue shall not be re-opened and raised again. We all should now concentrate on the larger issue of making this page reflect the historical reality. Cheers!!! --Bhadani 15:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Who am I to open and close the matter? Accordingly after deliberating over the mater for weeks, and examining the issues involved in their entirety, I have decided to refer the matter to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. I am doing this in the larger and long term interest of wikipedia and have posted this message at WP:RCU:" Anonymous editor has accused another user Paln as a sock-puppet of Deepak, most likely of the user User:Deepak gupta. I would request an examination of the matter in its entirety. If the charge of sock-puppetry is proved, I request for initiation of appropriate steps. In case, the charge turns out to be false, I request for initiation of suitable measures against the accusor as in my humble opinion, false accusation of this nature violates several basic principles of wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks and is also highly disruptive behavior. I am doing this in the long term interest of the Project." --Bhadani 15:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Er Bhadani why are you bringing this up days later? It was never a personal attack either, the user who was likely accused and I have already put it to rest and this is just going to make it worse. You can't just bring a new procedure in like this and claim that these new "suitable measures" should be taken just because you seem to be angry at me. Actions of an abusive sock are far worse than the accusation and the accusation would be in the long term interest of the project. But on your part, this is just bad faith. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear AE, I am not bringing anything - you had brought this long ago - I am trying to help you. --Bhadani 16:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No dear Bhadani, you are making things worse. It won't help anything whether it does come true or false. As I said it could just as likely be anyone else who just wants to make trouble. There are many I have seen now who would do that. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If there was an ongoing problem that couldn't be resolved in any other way it would make sense. To drag up old issues and ask that other people dedicate their precious time seems quite pointless. There is too much work to be done and too many other pressing problems to resolve to waste time and energy on this. It's water under the bridge. Let it go.--Lee Hunter 14:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I could understand, and would only say Yesterday: I love you more than yesterday. Yesterday, you got on my nerves. --Bhadani 16:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I may add that the issue has already been referred by me at the appropriate forum - the forum works for this purpose only, and is a part of our processes and procedures. I have also informed the user concerend. We volunteers have nothing to offer but Blood, toil, tears, and sweat. It is upto the community to decide such issues. Thanks and happy editings... let us continue to build the sum total of human knowledge. --Bhadani 16:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fork?

Isn't this article just a fork for Kashmir conflict? --Soman (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Herald.jpg

Image:Herald.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

A BBC article gives a good source for the name.[15] That's a good name for a military conflict, see also Insurgency in Aceh, Insurgency in Saudi Arabia ... --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Guardian" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html |title=Dangerous game of state-sponsored terror...}}
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kashmir/1994/kashmir94-01.htm|title=Introduction to Kashmir conflict}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead Child

Is the image of a dead child staring you right in the face really necessary for the purposes of this article?? I find it disturbing and over the top.

I don't see it. Kushal (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Overuse and misuse of "terrorist"

This article tends to both misuse and overuse the word "terrorist". For example, wherever training camps are mentioned they are called "terrorist training camps" apparently under the assumption that all insurgents are terrorists. This is the POV of one party to the conflict, but it is not a useful assumption for an encyclopedia. By using the word "terrorist" in every second sentence, whether or not it is justified, the article creates a hysterical tone that seriously degrades its credibility. Like most insurgencies the violence can be characterized as several types:

• Terrorism - acts of violence directed at the civilian population by non-state actors
• Insurgency - acts of violence directed at military and government targets by non-state actors
• Counter-insurgency - acts of violence by the forces of the ruling authority against insurgents.
• Repression - acts of violence against the civilian population by the ruling authority.

The insurgency in Kashmir involves all four of these activities. We should be careful not to conflate the first two. --Lee Hunter 18:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly you have answered yourself. As you said, the overuse of terrorist word is due to "the assumption that all insurgents are terrorists". Not all are described as terrorists and neither should the reverse assumption be right. I have only edited those selective statements which are directly attributed as a claim by India. Going by your simplified version of terrorism, the photo of the child and other incidents clearly aren't acts of insurgency but terrorism. Clearly you seem confused yourself and have tagged it as an act committed by insurgents. Further the lead para has to reflect the title of the page and Wikipedia already has an article on Islamic Terrorism, to which it was linked.

During the many conversion process, some references may have been lost or misquoted but they are not minority views. And views of a state or person isn't POV as per Wikipedia policies as long as it is sourced. You should have tagged any specific lines as {{cn}}. Simply making changes without a consensus will not work. Thanks. Idleguy 18:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You write 'I have only edited those selective statements which are directly attributed as a claim by India." If, as you say, it's a claim by India, then we have to specify that it is an allegation by that government.

Re. the photo of the child, there's no supporting documentation of who it is, where it's from and when it was taken. Was it from a deliberate act of terrorism? Was it collateral damage by an attack against a military target? Was it collateral damage from an Indian government action? We have no way of knowing.

I have no problem with the use of the word "terrorist" if either a) it is identified as an allegation or b) the source of the allegation is clearly identified at the point where the word is used.

Re. the introductory paragraph. The specific sentence is "Thousands of lives have been lost since 1989 due both, to the intensified insurgency and the Indian military. Those dead include civilians, Indian security forces, Kashmiri and non Kashmiri Islamic terrorists." This is simply odd. We specify the civilians. We specify the security forces. We specify the terrorists. What happened to the insurgents mentioned in the previous sentence? If we're going to make a list of the dead why do we drop the insurgents?

I frankly don't understand your point about terrorists not being insurgents. All terrorists are part of the insurgency since "insurgency" is a vague term that applies to everyone who is opposing the government forces with violence. --Lee Hunter 18:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Inline citations for government allegations and claims are missing or have disappeared since they were first provided, but it can be resolved. Please tag specific instances of disputed or POV statements/opinions that stick out without a source and it can be remedied faster; in the meantime I'll see what can be done to provide sources for them.

The photo's summary has now been provided according to what information I gathered from the photo's source. It is indeed classified as terrorist act and not the result of a collateral damage on either side. The location and date is missing for now, but I have requested the source to provide them if they can.

Lead para has been updated to include all the parties; soldiers, militants and terrorists. Any other suggestion to improve would be welcome. Idleguy 03:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Seperatist and nationlist alslo Mughalnz (talk) i giv info later —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

2,600 dead bodies found in mountains and forests Kashmir.

Please read full message and dont delete it.Law and order should be equal for everyone.So please read full message.

• December 02 2009 : Human rights orginization found 2,600 dead bodies in mountains and forests of Kashmir.More than 1 dozen were militants whereas others were civilians.Those were killed by indian security forces and then they burried dead bodies in mountains and forests.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_re_as/as_kashmir_nameless_graves I add above news of Kashmir topics on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Kashmir_conflict Please dont delete it because this news contain thousands.If my edit is wrong i mean please make my refrence and put the link on refrence. You people add 1 or 2 deaths by militants whereas you doesnt add thousands civilians killed by army.Is rules for militants and rules for army is different on wikipedia.Anyways in every month therei are several protests againnst indian army and every week there is minimum 1 shutter down call.In protests tens of thousands of civilians come out from houses and ptotests against indian army.Whereas indian army sheeling on them and sometimes army fire bullets on them which killed and injured several people.You people doesnt add this type of news.You only write militanst activities is is millions times less than indian army activities.If you write indian army activities than Kashmir topics update every new hour.A few weeks ago muslims and sikh, mostly sikh in Washington(USA) protest against insian army activities.Please equal law and order for everyone.

Mujahid1947 thanks for your message and involving in a dialogue. The link you have provided unfortunately does not substantiate your statements. Please read the article you are citing, it does not say that "More than 1 dozen were militants whereas others were civilians.Those were killed by indian security forces and then they burried dead bodies in mountains and forests.". Kindly cite facts/figures you get from reliable sources. If you have citations to substantiate your claims for e.g., "mostly sikh in Washington(USA) protest against insian army activities" then please provide them. Else your statements will be treated as POV comments which is not helpful. Either ways if Sikhs are protesting against Indian army, it is not relevant to this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenswiki (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Yahoo link redirects to a Yahoo search page and Google search leads to no perfect/credible matches. Nshuks7 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong info that there exists Hindu Extremists in Kashmir

"While the vast majority of militants are Muslims, one report indicated a minority of fighter (40 to 50) are Hindu militants who have either taken up arms or provided safe cover for militants" is given in this article ;which is wrong and the reference given to it does not exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.81.149 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No agency has reported this news though citations to it can be found on the web. Removing this passage for now until better references show up. Nshuks7 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalisation

This page has been badly vandalised. Unrealistic figures and respective agenda of two opposing parties (India and Pakistan) are the only two things that exist on this page. Some citations from books/references have no valid standing with respect to the information they produce, and thus information expressed by people expressing their personal views cannot be taken as a record to be cited here. Such citations should be deleted.

• Removed Section on religion and reference, referring to opinion of journalist Arsa Nomani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matsyes (talk • contribs) 07:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Matsyes, 29 May 2011

Please remove the following passage in the subsection Religion

"Indian-American journalist Asra Nomani states that while India itself is a secular state, Muslims are politically, culturally and economically marginalized when compared to Hindus in India as a whole.[41] This has led to the belief that Muslims do not belong in India and has alienated the Kashmiri people.[20]"

The opinion of Arsa Nomani isn't a valid reference. It is not supported by facts. Further the BBC article is unrelated to the statement "This has led to the belief that Muslims do not belong in India and has alienated the Kashmiri people." The article does not support this reasoning. Matsyes (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I have removed the statement in the 2nd part of your request as the source makes no mention of this. However as the first part of your request appears to be sourced I feel we would need substantial sources in disagreement to remove. --wintonian ^talk 02:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Extra-judicial killings and abuse of power by army

Hiye,

There is no mention of Power Abuse by Indian Secruity forces. I find this to be the most relevant topic to put in that information. More information about this can be found on HRW site.

Should this be added on this page or a separate page should be created? Its a significant information that needs to be put in and cannot be ignored.

Please discuss.

Thank You

203.175.64.10 20:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Phrozenflame

HUMAN rights violations by the indian army in Kashmir need to shown there are sources giving evidence on the abuse of innocent people in jammu and kashmir indians need to stop deleting valid posts and wake up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.149.159 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"These troops have engaged in widespread humanitarian abuses and have engaged in extra-judicial killings,often for entertainment. This has led to support for the insurgency." I think these lines are added just to defame the Indian Army. Comments like "for entertainment" have no base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voldemortin (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted a post on the involvement sector about the guardian report the source is not there and this statement is made up and totally fabricated by nationalists indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.74.254 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a post about human rights violations by pakistan there is no source and no evidence for this claim its totally baseless please only add date if it has a source and a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.74.254 (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

dont mix up data

Hi people i removed a post concerning the human rights abuses in pakistan about the BBC report its in the wrong section it belongs in the india abuses sections please dont get muddled up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal65 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Validity of data on pakistan human rights abuse

im concerned with the fact that the topic of pakistani human rights abuses in kashmir has not got even a single source can some one please provide sources that provide some basis on this claim about these so called abuses or it will be removed within a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal65 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

REMOVAL

i have removed the post on human rights abuses in pakistan there are no sources what so ever to back up this claim and sounds very fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal65 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs Images

The Image of a Terrorist in a hood (possibly with weapons) from any of the terrorist organistion would be welcome, please look into it .-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this image ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

militant with rifle

Strenght "800-3,200", out of whom "20,000" were killed

Sure, why not. --Niemti (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is people killed, not militants according to the source used, good spot. Will remove that now. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

what do Kashmiris want

This article mainly puts forward indian perspective and mentions some Pakistani viewpoints. What is conspicuous by its absence is what Kashmiris want and what they feel about the violence in Kashmir. The simple fact is that after partition of India, Kashmiris were promised plebicite by Indians - a promise never kept. Kashmiris do not consider themselves Indians, they have very little in common with the rest of India.

Also, most of tens of thousands of fatalities in Kashmir have been Kashmiri muslims, most if not all of them victims of Indian military. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.162.160 (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What you said is true.There was a plebiscite promised to people of kashmir. But it was before the attack of guerilla forces from pakistan on princely state of kashmir.And after the ceasefire agreement under UN in 1948, the princely state of kashmir no longer exist.So is it fare to have a plebiscite on the regions kashmir occupied by india alone.It should be done on both regions. In 1948 UN security council passed resolution 47 in order to resolve the disputes between two countries.According to this, in order to have a plebiscite supervised by UN, Pakistan Have its Permanent forces in PAK (Pakistani Administrated Kashmir). And its Not true that people of IOK (Indian Occupied Kashmir) consider themselves as Indians. They are living under the Occupation of India.And,India is a country who have Rejected Wishes of Kashmiri People and True Views of Pakistan.Its not only kashmir,people throughout the country differs significantly.The allegations against army is also not true.Why should the army who helps to maintain law and order in the should murder the people? The most of casualties occurred in J&K is due to militants of terrorist organizations operating across the border.The 2009 edition of the Freedom in the World (report) by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees rated Jammu and Kashmir to be partly free, while in comparison Pakistan-administered Kashmir was rated to be not free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.32.139 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the perspectives of the Kashmiri Pandits integrated in this article. As I see it, there are multiple stakeholders and the Kashmiri Pandits are one of the critical stakeholders in this issue.

Complete apathetic ludicrous to say that no human rights violations were commited by the Indian army. Over 3000 human corpses have been found in an unmarked grave in kashmir. How did they get there ? What does general V.K. Singh have to say abou that ? The Indian state and the great majority of its people seem to be in complete denial, the rhetoric seems to be dont claim my state to be the antagonist in this. The facts say something else. The kasmiri people woulnt be so vehemently opposed to indian rule if it wasnt for the indiscriminate murder and rape. There is no mention of AFSPA ( Armed Forces Special Powers Act )in this article under which army personel act with complete impunity. No security official can be tried for a criminal offence unless the central government sanctions proceedings and it never does. Its a draconian law that systematically supresses the subject peoples by means of indiscriminate violence. The plebiscite can be done if Indian wanted to do so which they dont because they know they'll lose kashmir and hold on to Jammu and Ladakh as a result. Qouting technicalities to deny the kashmiri peole self determination is quite frankly a hideously unjust thing to do. The article doesnt make a mention of maharaja ranjit singh, the pakistani invasion or the fact that ranjit singh was forced to join the Indian union given pakistani hostilities. Therefore India claims the state to be their own. The article is poorly written indeed. Kahmir is to India what Chechneya is to Russia, What Kurdistan is to Turkey, What palestine is to Israel. All states and their respective populations show complete disregard for the miseries suffered by noncombatants of these regions of conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.97.87 (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Supported by Pakistan

The info box had "Supported by Pakistan" in it, given it is well established fact that Pakistan has supported the insurgency, which even Pakistani politicians have admitted to, why is it being removed? Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Because insurgency still continues and Pakistan doesn't support it. --SMS ^Talk 18:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And your source for this? When did they drop LeT for instance? Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As of 2012 they still supported the terrorists according to this India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia p27 Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2013

106.222.108.181 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And your request? --SMS ^Talk 14:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Phosphora kashmir mass rape by indian army

Around 100 woman from poshpora kashmir where raped by the indian army which included a nine month full term pregnant lady,woman aging 94 years old and a minor 11 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.203.48 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Source? -- SMS ^Talk 14:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Army chief wants Indian soldiers in Kashmir(Lihaas (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)).

The Basic premise and authorship of the article is not respectful of the sovereignty of India, of which Kashmir is an integral part.

There is lot of information about Pakistan here, indicating that the author is Pakistani. This is ILLEGAL USE of wiki to claim territory of another country as your own. The reasons given for support by Pak government to insurgency show the assumptions that barring threat to their own lives, Pal government is free to aid rebel in another country like India. It also states that there are 600,000 Indian troops who are causing problems. This is again aiding a 'revolt' against sovereign nation of India and its legitimate army. India's armed men have faced deaths while protecting the peoples of Kashmir who are the main victims of the violence. They are doing what an armed forces of any nation does. Please discuss this with Indian nationals with some input from Pakistanis. Thank you for respect for international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.209.194 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

Please change "After independence from colonial rule India and Pakistan fought a war over the princely state of Kashmir. At the end of the war India controlled the most valuable parts of Kashmir" To "After independence from colonial rule Pakistani forces started occupying regions of bordering Kashmir by means of armed conflict with the Kashmir forces. The head of Kashmir State seeked help from India and India put a condition to help only if Kashmir became part of India. The head of Kashmir signed the instrument of accesssion to India. After the war ended, Indian forces have reclaimed most of the occupied territory from Pakistani forces while some on the western and norther regions remained with them which were later termed as Pakistan occupied Kashmir." Aeonsleo (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited any reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Furthermore, your request does not appear to be phrased from a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2015

Please verify independent objective sources (NOT Indian or Pak sources) which prove that the JKLF is involved in the insurgency. The JKLF is a peaceful organization desiring the independence of Kashmir from both India, Pakistan. It is not involved in an insurgency. Your facts are mistaken. I'll be back to check or I will report you to the Gods of Wikipedia. 92.16.16.154 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2015 (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. -- Sam ^Sing! 19:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

The ACM is Arup Raha not Arup Saha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • contribs) 12:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050415043415/http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org:80/atrocities/sangrampura.html to http://www.kashmiri-pandit.org/atrocities/sangrampura.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070303044412/http://www.hindustantimes.com:80/news/181_1445705,000900010002.htm to http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1445705,000900010002.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090810032903/http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj06_pallone/pr_feb15_kashmir.html to http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj06_pallone/pr_feb15_kashmir.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060721111742/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/2006/07/13/news/india.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/13/news/india.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110523125637/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1363447,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1363447,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Copied from Talk:Kashmir conflict

I'm imposing the following restrictions on this article and any other articles connected with the India Pakistan conflict over Kashmir:

• An immediate 1 RR restriction. Any attempt, even if made in good faith, to do more than one revert in a 24 hour period will lead to an immediate block.
• A revert without discussion restriction. Any revert of any edit, however minor, that is done without an explanation on the talk page will lead to an immediate block.
• A civility restriction. Any suggestion that any editor is not editing in good faith will lead to an immediate block.
• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

--regentspark (comment) 17:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Heavily biased statements in multiple sections

I understand its hard to maintain neutrality in an article such as this, but its not unreasonable to expect statements that don't outright blame a side. Several statements can be rephrased into a more neutral tone:

• Section 1.3: the Indian government has continued to send large numbers of troops to the Indian border and to crack down on civil liberties
• Section 2.5: These troops have engaged in widespread humanitarian abuses[54] - A strong statement with just one citation, if such abuse were as widespread as claimed there ought to be better citations.
• Section 4.1: Over time the Indian government has increasingly relied on military presence and a curtailment of civil liberties to achieve its aims in Kashmir.[54] - Using same citation as above, which evidently also consistently uses opinionated adjectives.

Hoping someone with restricted write access can rectify these. CaliforniaStudent1 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaStudent1 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2016

I understand its hard to maintain neutrality in an article such as this, but its not unreasonable to expect statements that don't outright blame a side. Several statements can be rephrased into a more neutral tone:

• Section 1.3: the Indian government has continued to send large numbers of troops to the Indian border and to crack down on civil liberties. Request to delete the highlighted statement.
• Section 2.5: These troops have engaged in widespread humanitarian abuses[54] - A strong statement with just one citation, if such abuse were as widespread as claimed there ought to be better citations. Request change to - The troops have been accused of humanitarian abuses
• Section 4.1: Over time the Indian government has increasingly relied on military presence and a curtailment of civil liberties to achieve its aims in Kashmir.[54] The military has committed human rights violations.[99] - Using same citation as above, which evidently also consistently uses opinionated adjectives. Request change to - Over time the Indian government has increasingly relied on military presence to control the insurgency

Hoping someone with restricted write access can rectify these.

CaliforniaStudent1 (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@CaliforniaStudent1:  Done These changes have been made. Thank you. -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

223.176.191.116 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No request made. — MBlaze Lightning ^T 18:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

218.248.21.117 (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Economic factors

@Tyler Durden: I don't understand this edit. The economic section was unsourced, and probably false. You have added a citation that says nothing about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I added the quote from that citation. I did not insert that section first. So I don't think I'm responsible for it. I don't feel its totally false though. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2017

Dear admin, in the Belligerents section, one of the Indian para military divisions is wrongly written as "Sashtra Seema Bal". It should be "Sashastra Seema Bal". The link to the wikipedia article is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sashastra_Seema_Bal . Please edit it and insert the correct URL. Thanks. Soumyakanti17 (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Wikipedia is not a reliable source. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 00:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Using "local" to describe the so-called insurgents is utterly farcical and a lie of the lowest order....

Dear Admins,

Please revise this article to remove the word local as far as describing the co-called insurgency is concerned.

Broad-based, the original Kashmir is divided into the Indian state of J&K, pak-occupied-Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan. The so-called insurgency is taking place in the Indian side of the region. While I will not talk about what hundreds of activists have said about the hr-violations and killings in p-o-K and Gilgit-Baltistan, or about what the UN says, the only correction I would like made is that the word "local" be replaced with something else more appropriate. Most - I do not have the statistics - but I reckon maybe 80% of them are terrorists of pak-punjabi origin. How can pak-punjabi terrorists be "local"???

The j-e-m / l-e-t / h-u-m and many more groups are in Indian Kashmir and have been mentioned in the article. Almost all of them are proscribed by the UN, the US, and many western nations as terror organizations. Almost all of these, with the sole except of the hizbul mujahideen are also pak-punjabi groups.

Given the duplicity and deceit and some editors carry in their very blood and genes, its only normal that this is expected, and the duplicity and deceit that these editors embody has been experiences by Indians, Kashmiris, Afghans, natives of pak-occupied-Kashmir, locals of Gilgit-Baltistan, Russians, Americans, and many others in the West.

117.194.229.89 (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

Please allow me to add to the section 1947-1987 the following statements after: "During this period legislative elections in Jammu and Kashmir were first held in 1951 and Sheikh Abdullah’s secular party stood unopposed. He was an instrumental member in the accession of the state to India.[43][44]"

a) The party of Sheikh Abdullah's party National Conference was mostly involved in the framing of the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as the nomination papers of most of the Jammu based Praja Parishad Party suffered widespread rejection which led to the eradication of major opposition to National Conference in constitutional framing. ( Bose, Sumantra (2003). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.) b) Sheikh Abdullah was imprisoned in 1955 under public protection act by sadr-e-riyasat Maharaja Karan Singh.The subsequently held elections were widely accused of mass rigging. ( Bose, Sumantra (2003). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.) Samarth309 (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

 Additional information needed. Thank you for providing a reliable source. Can you also indicate the page numbers where this information is covered? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Note also that the scholars do not have a uniform view of "rigging" in the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 1957. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Query related to change required

Please refer - Notable terrorist attacks in J&K - Jammu Terror Attack 2018 - On 10 February 2018 Jaiesh-e-Mohammad terrorists attacked Sunjuwan Army Camp in Jammu and Kashmir. 5 Indian army soldiers, 4 terrorists, 1 civilian died and 11 were injured.

This should be changed to 2018 Sunjuwan attack, since the title of the original page was changed. This small change is justified right? Note, there are some doubts related to the title change on the talk page of Sunjuwan attack Talk:2018 Sunjuwan attack, that is why I am not making the change directly and discussing it first. -- DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I see there has been a contested technical request for a name change... so that answers my doubt... we just have to wait for seven days until that discussion is closed. - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=825809574 - DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Grammar edit

A sentence in the intro uses three "and"s I edited it so it doesn't run on and on

"Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian government had been reversed and non-violent channels for expressing discontent were limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent secession from India" -> "Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s. By 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian government had been reversed and non-violent channels for expressing discontent were limited, causing a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent secession from India."

129.59.122.12 (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

Please change the strength panel for India 
30,000 – 600,000 Army
65,000 CRPF

to

210,000 Indian Army Soldiers
130,000 Central Armed Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF) and Indo-Tibet Border Police (ITBP)
130,000 J&K Security and Intelligence personnel

Total: 470,000

Source: http://www.rediff.com/news/column/india-has-700000-troops-in-kashmir-false/20180717.htm breaks the numbers down quite neatly.

Ultrachez (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this source is an opinion source that estimates the number, for infobox we need a better source, that provides the figure and not just an estimate. This would probably also need discussion on the talk page. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

"Terrorists" vs "Militants"

In this edit^[16], USER:Zeusades switched the term used to describe the individuals from "Terrorists" to "Militants". Before going on, it should be noted that the user has declared a COI in topics related to Jammu and Kashmir. Now, under WP:TERRORIST we are advised to avoid words like "Terrorist" unless it is widely used to describe the subject, and in this case that is debatable. The inline citation for the figure describes them as terrorists,^[17], and so does the rest of the article, with the term typically supported by the sources. However, more neutral sources like the BBC tend to describe them as "militants" outside of direct quotes,^[18][19] as does CNN^[20][21] and Fox News,^[22][23][24] while the potentially biased Times of India describes them as terrorists.^[25][26][27] It should also be noted that per the last Fox News Source, the United States Government has designated some of these "Militant Groups" as "Terrorists". Overall, I would suggest that the general consensus from sources we can deem neutral and unbiased is to refer to them as militants outside of quotes, but I would like consensus before any more changes to the article are conducted, whether by Zeusades or others. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit made by Zeusades is evidently correct. The Indian government calls them terrorists and the Indian media follow suit. So the Indian media sources are not enough. I would limit the terrorist label to those belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, which are recognised internationally as terrorist organisations, but avoid them for the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2019

 Not done: please Let us know which information is wrong and mention the correct information (in Change X to Y format) and provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

This is being discussed in the thread below. Please join the discussion. DBigXrayᗙ 07:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

How many?

The actual number of army is different as shown in your page Jaimalviya77 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC) https://www.rediff.com/news/column/india-has-700000-troops-in-kashmir-false/20180717.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalviya77 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

pinging DiplomatTesterMan, DBigXray. The figures on the page look dubious and the sources aren't well-cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I hate this particular aspect of the topic Kautilya3. Numbers flying around. Here is a start from my side to do this with a little bit of semblance, does this help in any way?:

Statement about number of troops in JK/Kashmir

Sr No	Source	Type	Date	Numbers stated	Variation
1	Kashmir in Conflict: By Victoria Schofield	Book	2000/2003	"Opponents of India’s military occupation of the valley of Kashmir continue to maintain that 600,000 troops are stationed throughout the state […] The figure is taken to include over half of the 33 divisions of the regular army, border security forces (100,000) and Jammu and Kashmir Police (30,000). Indian authorities say this is a gross exaggeration. ‘It is know that our army is just over 1 million. How (could we) possibly have half our army in Kashmir and leave our border exposed elsewhere?’ asked one army officer. […] Other sources suggest ‘around 100,000 personnel of the paramilitary border security forces and 30,000 men of Kashmir’s state police force,’ with five division of the army. A crack corps of (RR) was also brought into the valley to deal specifically with counter-insurgency."" (pg168-169)	2 - 6 lakhs
2	TRT World	News	July 2019	India maintains a deployment of 500,000 heavily armed troops in the tiny Himalayan region	5 lakhs
3	Ajai Shukla in Rediff.com	News	July 2018	"Pakistani propaganda and Kashmiri human rights organisations, such as the influential J&K Coalition of Civil Society, repeatedly state that India controls Kashmir by deploying 700,000 securitymen across the state. It is often alleged that half the Indian Army is based in J&K. It is bewildering why there has been no rebuttal or clarification of this issue from the central or state governments, or from the army itself? [...] Along with the regular army formations, that takes the number of army soldiers in J&K to 210,000, a little more than one-sixth of the Indian Army's authorisation of 1,215,049 soldiers. To say that half the army is deployed in J&K is a pure delusion."	2 - 7 lakhs
4	Gaurav Arya	Video	April 2018	Myth no 1. There are 700,000 Indian Army troops in Kashmir.....[....]
5	Khurram Parvez	News/ Interview	July 2016	In the JKCCS’s 2015 report, Structures of Violence, we have given the number of soldiers, the paramilitary and the police deployed in Kashmir. Our estimate is that anywhere between 6.5 lakh to 7.5 lakh [security personnel] are there in Jammu and Kashmir.	6.5 - 7.5 lakh
6

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks very much, DTM. That is good information.

I think Ajai Shukla is a reliable analyst, and Khurram Parvez's total figure does not disagree with his. So, I think it is fine to cite him. We need to include only the armed forces deployed in the "interior" (i.e., not border), and break it down among army, central police and J&K police. We have know idea how many of those J&K police would be armed police and how many would be "beat constables". But there is no particular need to worry about that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Belligerents; infobox flags

I have somewhat drastically edited the first couple of paragraphs of the lead. I apologize, but an insurgency is not a belligerency. The several citations in the new lead speak to that. For that reason, the infobox cannot have belligerents. Please also read WP:INFOBOXFLAG, as well as admin RegentsPark's final comment on the Talk:British Raj page. For that reason, the infobox cannot have the colorful bells and whistles of flags, symbols, emblems which give it the appearance of a fruit salad. Please also note that large doses of POV can be introduced in the infobox that would otherwise not pass muster in the text. We have to watch out for that. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a parameter to change the header from "belligerents" to something else, but most editors don't bother. I have changed it now. As for the "fruit salad", I don't mind either way, but I am not getting involved in debating it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: It does not help to change the labels.

• By definition, an insurgency does not have belligerents, i.e. combatants. It is an uprising or revolt, whether peaceful or armed, not a conflict, either civil or armed. What is the point of mentioning the Indian side? Especially, what is the point of listing them on the left?
• What is the point of mentioning the Indian political leadership, especially the current one, when the insurgency has been ongoing since 1989? The leadership, in any case, was added by a new editor in August 2019, in edits accompanied by opaque edit summaries. Why has that become the norm?
• WP:INFOBOXFLAG is a MOS guideline. It is pretty clear about infobox flags being avoided especially in controversial situations. Exceptions are armed combat or sports competitions. This is neither. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• The labels were the ones recommended at Template:Infobox military conflict. The folks at WP:MILHIST treat all armed conflicts as military conflicts. There have been discussions about it before, which I can dig up if need be.
• Quite a few pages at List of revolutions and rebellions have similar infoboxes, where the parties are labelled as "belligerents". As to why we need to list political leadership, we don't actually. The mobile wiki-reading public, which outnumbers us by several orders of magnitude, and the Wikipedia policy of an "encyclopedia that any one can edit", mean that they will get added sooner or later. I myself rarely read the infoboxes or pay attention to what goes in them, except when they are particularly egregious edits.
• WP:INFOBOXFLAG also says that flags are ok in military conflicts. So, once again, we lose. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, but this is not a military conflict. It is a revolt or uprising in Indian-controlled Kashmir, an armed resistance, but not an armed conflict. It has no lawful combatants. (See Insurgency) The Wikipedia Template:Infobox uprising redirects to Template:Infobox civil conflict, not military conflict. Please do find me the discussion at Hilhist. I will take it up with them there.
• Well, if drive-bys are tampering with the infobox, then I'm happy to set it right.
• Again, this is not a military conflict. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• See BBC page Kashmir insurgency. They consider it an armed resistance to Indian rule, not an armed conflict. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with some of your wordings but not all of them. But getting into them will go off on tangets.

I haven't claimed, and nobody else has claimed either, that the insurgents form a "military". But from WikiProject MILHIST's point of view, it is a "military conflict". You can find some indication of this kind of view in these threads: Project scope?, Infobox for militants. If you want a separate infobox for insurgencies, you need to take it up with MILHIST. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Neither discussion is satisfactory. I will take it up there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A question to consider, from my perspective, is: As regards a systematic description of distinguishing or essential features, why is Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir different from Revolutionary movement for Indian independence? The latter, for example, even had the support of two of the most malevolent states in history, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, in the instance of Subhas Bose's actions. Even after Spring 1944, when the Allied forces began to liberate the concentration camps, he said not a word in criticism of the Germans (Sugata Bose's defensive visualization of what might have been notwithstanding). He had a whole year before his death. So, why don't we have an infobox on the latter page, with Victoria, Edward VII ... George VI, and prime ministers Gladstone, Lloyd George, Stanley Baldwin, ... Attlee, listed in the left column? I'm not being facetious, but actually curious. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

That page is a random hotch potch. Even calls itself a "category". If there was an INA insurgency independent of the World War II, then we might have had a page similar to this one. But right now its activities get drowned in World War II. At the other extreme, we have the Soviet-Afghan War, closer to home and funded by same the external agents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Another stat for number of troops

"About one-third of the army is engaged at all times in counter-insurgency operations in Jammu and Kashmir" source Ajai Shukla DTM (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

possible vandalism

"The insurgents have also abused human rights, engaging in what some have called an ethnic cleansing by exterminating Kashmiri Pandits from the valley of Kashmir." and a citation to https://web.archive.org/web/20090810032903/http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj06_pallone/pr_feb15_kashmir.html

nowhere does the cited page talk about "extermination". "have used violence against the Kashmiri Pandits in an effort to institute Islamic rule in this region." is the sentence used, not ethnic cleansing by exterminating kashmiri pandits. merrian webster dictionary defines the word "exterminate" as "to get rid of completely usually by killing off". This is a serious word used without any hard facts backing it. i was unable to find when exactly this edit was introduced in the page but i hope good minds will decide whether this sentence should remain in the article or not. Mhveinvp (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for raising it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A bigger problem there is that a resolution was introduced. It doesn't mean a thing. We don't know that it passed. All representatives have their axes to grind. Pollone very likely has a relatively large Hindu nationalist Indian population in New Jersey. Thousands of resolutions and bills are introduced every two years; in the 109th Congress, 16% passed. See page 6 in this publication. Even if it passed, it is a political resolution, not a reliable source. In fact, it most emphatically is not. For there weren't 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits to begin with. See Metcalf and Metcalf's Concise History of Modern India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

How many?

The actual number of army is different as shown in your page Jaimalviya77 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC) https://www.rediff.com/news/column/india-has-700000-troops-in-kashmir-false/20180717.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaimalviya77 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

pinging DiplomatTesterMan, DBigXray. The figures on the page look dubious and the sources aren't well-cited. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I hate this particular aspect of the topic Kautilya3. Numbers flying around. Here is a start from my side to do this with a little bit of semblance, does this help in any way?:

Statement about number of troops in JK/Kashmir

Sr No	Source	Type	Date	Numbers stated	Variation
1	Kashmir in Conflict: By Victoria Schofield	Book	2000/2003	"Opponents of India’s military occupation of the valley of Kashmir continue to maintain that 600,000 troops are stationed throughout the state […] The figure is taken to include over half of the 33 divisions of the regular army, border security forces (100,000) and Jammu and Kashmir Police (30,000). Indian authorities say this is a gross exaggeration. ‘It is know that our army is just over 1 million. How (could we) possibly have half our army in Kashmir and leave our border exposed elsewhere?’ asked one army officer. […] Other sources suggest ‘around 100,000 personnel of the paramilitary border security forces and 30,000 men of Kashmir’s state police force,’ with five division of the army. A crack corps of (RR) was also brought into the valley to deal specifically with counter-insurgency."" (pg168-169)	2 - 6 lakhs
2	TRT World	News	July 2019	India maintains a deployment of 500,000 heavily armed troops in the tiny Himalayan region	5 lakhs
3	Ajai Shukla in Rediff.com	News	July 2018	"Pakistani propaganda and Kashmiri human rights organisations, such as the influential J&K Coalition of Civil Society, repeatedly state that India controls Kashmir by deploying 700,000 securitymen across the state. It is often alleged that half the Indian Army is based in J&K. It is bewildering why there has been no rebuttal or clarification of this issue from the central or state governments, or from the army itself? [...] Along with the regular army formations, that takes the number of army soldiers in J&K to 210,000, a little more than one-sixth of the Indian Army's authorisation of 1,215,049 soldiers. To say that half the army is deployed in J&K is a pure delusion."	2 - 7 lakhs
4	Gaurav Arya	Video	April 2018	Myth no 1. There are 700,000 Indian Army troops in Kashmir.....[....]
5	Khurram Parvez	News/ Interview	July 2016	In the JKCCS’s 2015 report, Structures of Violence, we have given the number of soldiers, the paramilitary and the police deployed in Kashmir. Our estimate is that anywhere between 6.5 lakh to 7.5 lakh [security personnel] are there in Jammu and Kashmir.	6.5 - 7.5 lakh
6

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks very much, DTM. That is good information.

I think Ajai Shukla is a reliable analyst, and Khurram Parvez's total figure does not disagree with his. So, I think it is fine to cite him. We need to include only the armed forces deployed in the "interior" (i.e., not border), and break it down among army, central police and J&K police. We have know idea how many of those J&K police would be armed police and how many would be "beat constables". But there is no particular need to worry about that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

New figure - "Forces deploy 1 million to guard Kashmir Valley" aug 2019 asianage. DTM (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Revisionism

Xeed.rice, it looks like you are engaged in a major revisionsist project. I see lots of edits changing wording without new sources. And, I am not sure why Azad Kashmir has been added to the infobox. Is there a source that talks about insurgency in Azad Kashmir?

You have an "in use" template. So I didn't revert anything. But I should warn you that you are wasting your time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, most of my edits are usually centred around clean-up and minor detailing that doesn't usually involve massive informational changes (except for a few times where I have changed information with reliable sources or sometimes messed up and didn't cite effectively). I labelled Azad Kashmir as having low-level unrest, which I extensively sourced. However, I'm still digging for more information on the insurgency with regards to Pakistan (I know that it initially started off as a Kashmiri insurgency demanding separatism from both India and Pakistan, but later become an India-centred one). As it happens, I'm still looking through for more sources and/or documents through which I can find more details and if I don't, I'll probably just take Azad Kashmir out of the infobox and remove the template. Xeed.rice (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, this is about the insurgency in the Jammu and Kashmir state in India (now union territory) not other areas of the Kashmir conflict. So the mention of Azad Kashmir is outside the scope of this article, start a new article if you want but this is not the place. I would recommend @Kautilya3: to revert your edits here for clearly WP:COATRACK issues. Secondly and more importantly your clean-ups more often than not have major issues of content addition/modification including POV additions as has been noted by multiple editors, clean-ups should be limited to spelling corrections/copyedits and should not extend to content changes. Gotitbro (talk) 10:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Xeed.rice, Even in the cases where the POV is acceptable, you cannot change the content without adding sources that support it. It breaks WP:Text-source integrity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll revert the article then. Xeed.rice (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Part of the Kashmir conflict?

Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict between India and Pakistan, with China supporting the Pakistani side. The Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir is about the protests of the Kashmiri people against the Indian administration of J&K. Clearly both topics are different. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 16:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is the longstanding Indian line and POV. "Wider" from the hat note should be removed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Numbers being bandied about

Truthwins018, you have edit-warred over this content.

Indian military soldiers have been accused on mass rape with estimated ranging around 11,170 and rape has been used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers

References

Who has produced these numbers? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly mentioned in the sources i providedTruthwins018 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

None of these are WP:HISTRS (hardly WP:RS even) and you are still edit warring over this. Bring better sources not blogs and un-vetted links with clear sourcing and POV issues. Gotitbro (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, but it is you people who are prolonging the issue. I would have rather appreciated if you people who have editted my addition rather completely remove it even after it is sourced. My main source was the report by Kashmir Media Service and the other articles provide secondary sources on the primary sourceTruthwins018 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Security forces killed

New data has provided by ministry of home affairs(MHA) in lok sabha. So I am updating it. I am giving reliable ref also. If anyone has any problem, then talk on this matter. New data is 481 security personnel were killed between 2014-2020. The data is 5462 security perosonnel killed between 1990-2014. So, the new data is 5462+481=5943. I am improving Wikipedia, thanks. Khalidwarrior (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

According to SATP, overall security personnel killed between 1988-2000 and 2000-2021 is (3520+3492=7012). And SATP site ref is also given in KPK insurgency. So it's a reliable site. So rounding off to atlest 7000. Thanks Khalidwarrior (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Cite errors

There are two cite errors in the article. The first is that the reference "timesonline.co.uk" is no longer in use, but still appears in the reflist. It should be commented out or removed.
The second issue is that the refname ":0" has been defined twice. The second instance in the Stone pelting section should be renamed.
Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I fixed the dup ref. Not sure why the timesonline.co.uk is showing as undefined. It's being used, and is defined. <ref name="timesonline.co.uk"> {{citation |title=India's leader makes peace overtures in Kashmir |newspaper=The Times |date=18 November 2004 |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article392432.ece |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110523122550/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article392432.ece |archive-date=23 May 2011}}: "Military experts estimate that India has about 250,000 troops in the region." </ref> ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to fix it by moving it down into the reflist, didn't work, so unfortunately I give up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that reFill2 has been near the reference, it sometimes breaks refs in the reflist by consolidating them into the article (which doesn't work). This can be fixed by removing the / from the reflist refname. It currently reads <ref name="timesonline.co.uk"/> but should read <ref name="timesonline.co.uk">(not the / has been removed). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There we go. Success! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against move. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir → Insurgency, militancy and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir – The addition of 'militancy' and 'terrorism' would allow the topic to be covered more accurately, and also facilitate the importance of differentiating the terms. DTM (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject India has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 15:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Pakistan has been notified of this discussion. VR _talk 15:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Word "terrorism" is POV and should be avoided per MOS:TERRORIST. The increase in words is also redundant, and hence goes against WP:CONCISE.VR _talk 15:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are very few scenarios where scholars unanimously characterize any armed movement as "terrorism". This is not one of them. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per others and the fact that "insurgency" is the WP:COMMONNAME for conflicts like this, such as on Naxalite–Maoist insurgency and Insurgency in Northeast India. YttriumShrew (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per VR, TrangaBellam and YttriumShrew. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:terrorist Shadow4dark (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

The article states that Kashmir has long been a breeding ground for insurgents and cites an article from the New York Times that does not say that. The article says it has long been as source of tension. The presumption that Kashmir is a "breeding ground" for insurgents is defamatory and insulting (not to mention unsupported by any credible source) Ladypumah (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say what you claim. Please read it again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

How many

A recent addition was made to the strength numbers in the infobox stating the range to be about 700,000 citing an Al Jazeera article for the same. A discussion for this exact thing is available in the archives here, but I am unable discern a consensus and the infobox stats have gotten changed since prompting the recent addition.

I don't think Al Jazeera's passing mention of the strength is particularly reliable as a source and better sources (including from the last discussion) can be used and the figures adjusted accordingly. @Kautilya3 and DiplomatTesterMan: pinging from the last discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should stick to the old consensus. We need specialists assessing these things, not reporters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al-badr flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Figures

Angana P. Chatterji cites the ngo ‘estimate’ of 70,000–90,000 in her article to her submission to a congressional hearing in 2019 where she says (p. 14) that ngos estimate “between 50,000 and 70,000 people have reportedly died since 1989,” cited in turn to page one of the 2006 HRW report which says “at least twenty thousand Kashmiri civilians have been killed (Kashmiri groups say that the number is much higher)” and that “tens of thousands have been injured,” and to a 2012 guardian article which says “some estimates” place the number of dead “at 70,000.” The latter estimate of 70,000 includes all casualties, combatant and civilian. @Kautilya3: shouldn’t we be careful when placing casualties in the lead? In the casualties section of this article are mentioned two estimates, 80,000 attributed to Hurriyat, 70,000 of JKCCS. Both these are also for casualties overall (civilian, militant and army). UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Oriental Aristocrat, the sources you’ve added themselves do not demonstrate that “Kashmir intifada” is a significant alternative name for the subject of this article, i.e. the insurgency which has been ongoing since 1989. Of the sources you’ve added for intifada, the first says in the introduction that it employs the term for “the summer of 2010”, referring to the 2010 unrest: “It is these images of naked courage that allowed people in Kashmir to tremulously make a connection with the long and heroic resistance of the people of Palestine. And refer to the summer of 2010 as their intifada”. Sumantra Bose calls the 1990–95 militancy “the intifada phase,” and calls the 1999–2002 period as “the fidayeen phase.” That doesn’t make “Kashmir fidayeen” an alternative name for the subject of this article. In the wire article, Jha refers to the peak militancy of 1990–95 as the “first ‘Intifada’”, and the 2016 unrest as the second. And the Watali memoir hardly trumps scholarship. Such cherrypicking of sources is misrepresentation. The term here on this article was added by an account that was blocked for sock-puppetry about a month after the edit. Ideally it should have been reverted then. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted it. I have also removed the section about India Pak cross border fire, as that was not related to the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources I’ve added do demonstrate that “Kashmir intifada” is a significant alternative name for the subject of this article, i.e. the insurgency which has been ongoing since 1989. Thank you for acknowledging the fact that the sources have referred to the insurgency as 'Kashmir intifada' from time to time since it's beginning. Further, as the term has been on the article for five long years (2017-2022) without a debate on its presence until someone removed it without a valid argument, it should remain in the article given the longstanding history. Unless of course, if you can come up with reliable sources that say 'Kashmir Insurgency' has never been referred as the 'Kashmir Intifada'. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Almost all the top search results that are returned in a google search for kashmir intifada are related to the Watali memoir. That is the primary usage of the name. We can add it to the article on such a day that the term returns result to the insurgency more than it does to the book. Until then, no. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Google Search results are never a good gauge as the search results are skewed and tailored to each user's own search history and preferences. The search result that comes up on your screen cannot triumph the sources already provided. 'Kashmir Intifada' is a significant alternate name and should be mentioned in the article lead. During speech at the United Nations General Assembly on 21 September 2016, Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister of Pakistan, described Burhan Wani as a "young leader" who had emerged as a symbol of the latest "Kashmiri Intifada". Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Nawaz Sharif is as reliable a source for “intifada” as an Indian Prime Minister would be for “terrorism,” which is what they all call the insurgency. That doesn’t mean we add “Kashmir terrorism” as an alternate name. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not about Nawaz Sharif or Modi. It's about coverage of Intifada. If there is coverage, we can mention this in the page. Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The term "Kashmir Intifada" accurately captures the nature of the ongoing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir, as it highlights the grassroots and popular nature of the movement, which has been driven by Kashmiri aspirations for self-determination and independence. While the term "Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir" may be technically accurate, it fails to capture the full complexity of the conflict and may be seen as overly militaristic or one-sided. The sources provided are sufficient in supporting the use of the term 'Kashmir Intifada', as they present solid evidence and are credible in terms.Ainty Painty (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

April

Some content was added as well as deleted without sufficient reasoning. Kindly discuss changes likely to be controvertial before implementing them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Each edit carries a summary explaining the edit. Not every edit needs discussion beforehand. Please explain your objection to each of the edit instead of going around making outright revert of multiple edits. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Kindly take out some time to read WP:ONUS, WP:BRD. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

1. UnpetitproleX first removed a casualty figure that was reportedly stated by human rights groups saying "passing mention in a pakistani newspaper not reliable enough for lead". What does that even mean? Is The Express Tribune not a reliable source because it's a Pakistani newspaper or it's not reliable enough for the lead but reliable enough for the body of the article? UnpetitproleX then reverted multiple edits, removing the casualty figure (from a WP: SECONDARY source) that was attributed to Angana P. Chatterji who again points to non-governmental sources (NGOs). After UnpetitproleX had made a self-revert due to 1RR violation, you appear here to make the revert. Interestingly, it was your first edit on this article. Following which neither you nor UnpetitproleX pointed any issue regarding the casualty figures added, in the discussion above. That is why, the figure was added back to maintain WP:BALANCE and WP:NPOV as the lead currently mentions only the official figure from a WP:PRIMARY source.

2. The 'Cultural changes' sub-section title isn't required in the 'History' section that otherwise carries sub-sections on the timeline of the subject.

3. Either "non-Muslim minority Kashmiri Pandits" or "minority Kashmiri Hindus" should be written as opposed to "non-Muslim minority Kashmiri Hindus" which is a redundant phrase.

4. Linking the Indo-Pak border skirmishes that are part of the larger Kashmir conflict and the 2008 Mumbai attack here is WP:UNDUE. We don't mention that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 attacks everytime it's name comes up.

5. Major articles directly related to this topic were mentioned in the 'See also' section.

I hope this would suffice as a satisfactory & detailed explanation to the changes made. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It does not suffice. Your explanations omit the fact that you have also removed material without mention, while inserting material supporting the insurgents. This is POV editing in its most obvious form. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What material are on about? Do you even read edit summaries? The only removal made was of a WP:OPINION piece reference. Also what material was added "supporting the insurgents". No such addition was made. Even then, if you have a problem with a certain part of the edit, only make a revert for that certain part instead of reverting multiple edits in one go. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

If you check the left column on "compare revisions", you can see what material was deleted. Till now no reason has been provided for it. And if material is too problematic to be repaired, it is best to throw it out and start again. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, what material are on about? Go ahead, mention it here. Also mention your version of the text you are okay with going into the article. Or is it that your only goal is to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia? You have still failed to provide any policy-based argument for reverting the five edits explained above. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, personal attacks dont get consensus. You are a new editor, and would do well to learn this early. As for the content of edits, do you contest that you also deleted major articles from "See Also"? Much of the rest is contested by other editors, and you need to satisfy existing concerns before enforcing those edits. The only constructive part of the series of edits was perhaps the citation needed tags, if you want to put those back feel free. Trying to put any of the rest would be edit warring. 21:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The ET figure is unreliable not only because it is mentioned in a Pakistani newspaper, it is unreliable because of the casualness with which a gigantic figure is passingly mentioned and attributed to “rights groups.” What groups, it doesn’t say. That cannot be repeated in wikivoice at all. Chatterji’s figure is unreliable owing to the carelessness with which the 90,000 figure is produced out of thin air. Her two ultimate sources do not mention such a figure. Unlikely that this figure will be unduly placed in the article, let alone in the very lead. Sumantra Bose’s figures are already in the body—he qualifies the Hurriyat figure by stating that the Hurriyat is “pro-Pakistan.”(Bose 2003: 4) This figure he doesn’t even repeat in his 2021 work. You need to reread WP:NPOV and grasp what it really means, it doesn’t mean that if we are provided with 10 highly unreliable figures then we repeat some (or any) of them, especially not in wikivoice. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The cultural changes sub section not only is due, because almost all scholarly works discuss these changes, but rather is insufficient here. It needs more content, not removal. The Bombay attacks and even the parliament attacks both warrant mention, they were committed by groups directly related to the insurgency. UnpetitproleX (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

Move JKLF from the militants section to the political parties section in the infobox belligerents. JKLF ceased militancy in Indian held Kashmir decades ago. Solblaze (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Lightoil, Here are some - you'll find more on JKLF's article where I retrieved these from. Solblaze (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Solblaze find them and add them to your request. I am reopening your edit request, someone else will decide whether to complete your edit request. Lightoil (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The JKLF articles lead currently describes them as militant. Please seek consensus to change their description on that article, then come back here. small jars tc 21:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per the discussion below there is a consensus to not move this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir → Insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir – Multiple issues related to clarity and POV.
Calling the area "Jammu and Kashmir," the name India has designated it, in wikivoice, gives undue weight to the Indian POV in a very controversial dispute. We do not call the Pakistani part of Kashmir "Free Kashmir" for the same reason.

Neutral sources refer to the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir as "Indian-administered Kashmir."

The naming is extremely vague and confusing. "Jammu and Kashmir" can refer to multiple things - either the entire greater disputed region of Kashmir, or the name India gives to the part it controls.
But this is not where the confusion ends.
After 2019, when India dismembered Indian administered Kashmir, the entirety of which was known as state of Jammu and Kashmir, India created another much smaller territory with completely different boundaries called Jammu and Kashmir (Union territory).
Sources from before late 2019 calling it the "insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir" are referring to the territory of the state that spanned the entirety of Indian-administered Kashmir, not the new union territory with different boundaries. So, you can see how when one reads "Jammu and Kashmir" it can be vague and confusing even for those well informed about the region, let alone the average Wikipedia reader.

References

Solblaze (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Solblaze (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added {{Reflist-talk}} to your request to prevent its references from showing up at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#References. – MaterialWorks 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Jammu and Kashmir is the name of the state, officially as well as in common parlance, just like Azad Kashmir is the name of the province on the Pakistani side. We don't recognize any POV with official names. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  But the location linked in the article is not the state; it is the union territory. Solblaze (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not a big deal , the newly formed Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir had always been the main hotspot for insurgent activities,not the Union territory now known as Ladakh. The splitting of Jammu and Kashmir into two parts can be clarified in the article Smahwk (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Until sources say this, you cannot link to the UT. The vast majority of sources refer to the state. Solblaze (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  And most of the locations which are mentioned in the sources are now a part of the UT. Smahwk (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is WP:SYNTH. Until the majority of scholarly, neutral sources state the conflict is limited to the UT, you can't change the decades long consensus.

  Also, the vast majority of Indian-administered Kashmir's population is in the UT. Naturally, there will be more activity there. Solblaze (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is common sense . Most of the scholarly, neutral sources on the subject focus on locations which are now a part of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir , not Ladakh.Most of the research related to the conflict was published before the state was split into two;the Indian government doesn't even mention Ladakh anymore while talking about the insurgent activities.

  The ethnic composition of Ladakh is also very different from that of J&K Smahwk (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the scholarly, neutral sources on the subject focus on locations which are now a part of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

  <citation needed>

  Most of the research related to the conflict was published before the state was split into two;

  Precisely my point; this research refers to the entire state.

  The ethnic composition of Ladakh is also very different from that of J&K

  Yes, the few people who live in Ladakh may have a different ethnic composition (by the way, Kargil, capital of Ladakh, is Muslim majority and has protested its separation from J&K and Leh has also protested the revocation of article 370), but I don't see how that's relevant here. In a controversial topic like this, multiple high quality, neutral, scholarly sources are needed. Solblaze (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I’m sorry, but there is near total academic consensus that the insurgency was largely limited to the Kashmir Valley, until the mid-1990s when it spread to some parts of Jammu. There have been no major incidents of violence (except this) in Ladakh nor any participation in the insurgency even by its Muslim residents. Even the US travel advisory to India considers Ladakh to be safe from "terrorism and civil unrest," unlike Jammu and Kashmir. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am not arguing about the fact that the historical region of Ladakh is relatively peaceful - but you need RS explicitly referring to the modern Union Territory boundaries. Just like the first historical definition of "India" refers to a region almost entirely outside of the modern political entity "India's" borders. Solblaze (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ladakh has historically opposed being clubbed with Jammu and Kashmir and the people of Ladakh excluding Kargil initially celebrated the revocation of article 370.They have since organized protests demanding statehood as an independent Indian state, not as a part of Kashmir.

Smahwk (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• Link vandalism is an entirely separate issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

• How about Insurgency in Kashmir? That way it doesn't address governance. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  No, because a part of Kashmir is controlled by Pakistan .There is no insurgency in Pakistan administered Kashmir , as of 2023 Smahwk (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see how that would make things confusing. I will strikethrough it. HenryMP02 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: We do refer to the part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan as Azad Kashmir(Free Kashmir) in most of the articles where it is mentioned Smahwk (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kautilya3. Also oppose "Insurgency in Kashmir" as suggested by HenryMP02: "Kashmir" is more confusing and vague, not less. It refers to the region, the division and the valley. But agree that the title doesn't need to address governance—the current title already doesn't. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Kargil is a capital of Ladakh, you can't sideline its importance - also, regardless of our opinions, the majority of RS, preferably history books, have to refer to the boundaries of the Union territory. It doesn't matter how India changes names or boundaries - tomorrow they could change Jammu and Kashmir's name to "The UT of Bihar" and it still wouldn't justify changing every reference in the article to the latter. Solblaze (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no insurgency in Kargil. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References