Template talk:Kashmir separatist movement

Title

I think the new title is still not neutral. My suggestion is that it be renamed "Kashmir conflict", which is neutral and in line with our current main article on the situation in that region. --regentspark (comment) 10:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is pointless as we already have one called Kashmiri nationalism which Mar4d pointed out at the deletion discussion, this template is naught but a political pov push. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is a Template:Kashmir conflict, but this one is mainly focused on the Kashmiri nationalist/separatist movement of Jammu and Kashmir. Most of the articles here do not fall under the scope of the Kashmir conflict template. Mar4d (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  In that case, I agree that this is a pov template. Separating out the separatist movement or nationalism from the conflict is definitely non-neutral. I'll add a comment at the deletion discussion. --regentspark (comment) 12:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't think so... all nationalist movements that are notable have templates for navigation. See Indian independence movement, Pakistan movement. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@RP: No, you misunderstood. What I mean is that the seperatist movement is inherently notable to have a template of its own. Stuff like articles on Kashmiri activists/nationalist organisations/seperatist activities is exactly suited for this template, not the Kashmir conflict template which should only have very general and non-specific articles. Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess this conversation just got moved to the TFD vide RP's comment there. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist groups

The groups I have removed are not separatist groups by any stretch of the imagination, per wp:burden it is for those adding them to prove their contention that these terrorists are seperatists. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• So is nobody going to prove which articles ought be in this pov template? As most will have to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Mar4d, please prove the terrorist groups you keep adding to this template are in fact seperatists. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please prove how those groups are not relevant to the template. These groups are engaged in a conflict against the central government and aspire to see Kashmir seperated. SMS has already explained this point to you in more than one occasion but you seem to be insistent in not hearing. The burden is on you; if you do not present any valid rationale/objections, this should be restored. Mar4d (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Read burden again, the onus is on those adding content to prove it belongs. So prove these terrorist groups set up by Pakistan to fight a proxy war are seperatist when the goal is to see all if Kashmir annexed by Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your comment says it all, I do not need to prove anything. As you said, those groups do not want to see Kashmir in India. They are separatist in their nature and ideology. Mar4d (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

They do not want Kashmir in India, they want it in Pakistan. That is not separatism. Prove they are fighting for an Independent state and they can go back. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Going to stay

I think this template is going to stay now. Mar4d, please proceed with adding it to the articles you were going through before. Esp, on the ones listed on the template. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed, why

I have now had to remove links from this template which have no place here, again. For those restoring the links please meet WP:BURDEN and explain how these links deal with the Kashmir separatist groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And yet again, you make a completely mockery of WP:BRD and WP:DR. How long will you continue to do this? I have already made the case clear (and so have others) that human rights abuses and media are entirely relevant to the Kashmiri separatist cause. You follow the WP:BURDEN now to substantiate why the links have no place. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Last time on here also, the burden is on you, prove with sources that these links have a connection to the separatist movement. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There. Mar4d (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Media

• The National (Abu Dhabi): Kashmiri protesters turn to Facebook
• Times of India Online, protesters 'hurl' tweets, spew vitriol
• NDTV (India) Facebook rebels: Kashmir's online protes; Facebook, YouTube used as weapons in Kashmir fight
• The Hindu The world of Kashmir's online rebels
• The Guardian: Kashmir protesters are using social media to disseminate news and views...
• Global Post Social media has come to Kashmir
• Indian Express Kashmir violence spills on to the Net
• Wall Street Journal: Rocks, YouTube Undergird Kashmiri Protests.

Mar4d (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please indicate which source is to support which link. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Human rights abuse as well as media, which you removed. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you do not get it. Which of those sources supports Rape in Jammu and Kashmir being in this template, which of those sources says rape has anything to do with the separatist movement. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Times of India; Kashmir paralysed by rape protest, Asian Correspondent; Indian Kashmir shuts down to protest alleged rape. Mar4d (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(out)Both fail verification. Neither of those articles say that rape is a part of the separatist movement. Nor does it say that separatists were demanding independence due to acts of rape. It says separatists demanded a one day strike for allegations of rape. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in both these press sources that separatists have protested against rape atrocities. Mar4d (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It mentions that separatists called for a day of strikes due to allegations of rape. It does not say that separatists want to be separate because of it. You are engaging in WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pro-accession parties

On India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution (1998) p.132, Wirsing defines the Kashmiri separatist movement in two dimensions: one which is pro-Pakistan and the other which favours independence from both countries. In both cases, a defined agenda of the movement is separation from India. From this criteria, observers have divided separatist outfits into two groups, namely Pro-Independence and Pro-Accession (i.e. pro-Pakistan). Pro independence outfits include Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front whereas the pro-accession Kashmiri organisations include Hizbul Mujahideen, Al Jehad, Al Barq, Ikhwan ul-Musalmeen etc. Both factions have certain ideological differences but nevertheless constitute the separatist movement, according to this academic source.

The template will have to be reverted soon to its previous form where pro-accession parties were included. Those objecting need to bear WP:BURDEN and present their case. Mar4d (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, read burden again and again and again, it will never say what you want it to say. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Read this part of WP:BURDEN: Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.. Anyway, I think that makes my point clear. Mar4d (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually no it does not. You are asking me to prove a negative. Prove the terrorists are separatists and not in fact paid thugs for Pakistan's proxy war. I have the sources for that, were are yours? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The source clearly says that Pro-Pakistan groups are separatist. Here is another one, calling Lashkar-e-Taiba an Islamic separatist group in Kashmir [1]. Mar4d (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another one:

Since 1990, the north Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir has been the site of a vicious conflict between Indian security forces and Muslim insurgents demanding independence or accession to Pakistan. As the conflict enters its fourth year, Indian security forces have increasingly targeted civilians in an effort to crush support for the guerilla forces.

— Patricia Gossman, Vincent Iacopino (1993), The Crackdown in Kashmir: Torture of Detainees and Assaults on the Medical Community, pp. 1

Mar4d (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Also; Four reasons for separatism in Kashmir, Kashmir in the Shadow of War: Regional Rivalries in a Nuclear Age, p.152 by Robert Wirsing:

1. Kashmir's disputed status due to Pakistan's territorial claim

2. The Indian state (its misrule, repression, and denial of Kashmiri self-determination)

3. The Kashmiri nationalist movement (both secular and religious, the "emergence of ethnic subnationalism in Kashmir and its challenge to the Indian state")

4. Increase in political mobilization of Kashmiris against a background of institutional decay in India.

Mar4d (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Kashmir

I have removed the link to the article for now, there should be discussions first here. I believe Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir cover that. It obviously is a point of conflict so better off without the link. Your views are welcome. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disputed content?

In the third {{tfd}} one respondent wrote:

“Unfortunately, the creators of the template are not working to neutralize it but instead try to reintroduce already rejected and disputed content such as the inclusion of the Al-Qeada ally and terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba which committed the Mumbai attacks.”

I don't see any explanation here on the talk page that Lashkar-e-Taiba is “disputed content”. I am not an expert on Kashmir -- but I think I know that it is a militant group that focusses on Kashmir. I request those who think there is disputed content that shouldn't be included here, without a discussion to resolve whether it belongs, list those articles names, followed by their explanation as to why it doesn't belong.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why Lashkar-e-Taiba is still mentioned in the discussions. It is no longer in the template and I checked the history, it has been removed for many days now. Any issue with the neutrality of the template is addressed by increasing the scope to Azad Kashmir and removing articles like rape, pro-Pakistan sentiments etc. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 07:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some suggestions

In the TfD there seems to be a consensus that all issues should be first discussed on the talk page. Although I still think that the purpose of this template is to push POV, I am suggesting some changes:

• Increase the scope to the whole Kashmir
• Remove the footnote as thee would be not need after increasing the scope
• Remove links to Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, the whole "Controversies" section, and Kashmir Solidarity Day.
• Add Separatist movements of Pakistan, or remove Separatist movements of India.

I hope that all these suggestion will be taken into consideration. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• of course these need to be included as the rationale given during the deletion discussions was this POV template could be balanced --DBigXray 17:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)