Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 1

message: Sorry, folks, but I don't think this is going to work. You can't just take a copyrighted work, copy it into a WP article, and then refactor it to mitigate the copyvio. All that does is make it harder to detect the copyvio. It remains a derivative work. We need to roll back, and I am pretty sure I picked the right version when doing my previous revert. Rl 17:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: * The article is neutral by all means. Even if the militias have a sepratists ideology, they use terrorism to achieve their goals and they are rightfully called as terrorists. For those who still argue with these militias being called as terrorists, I think in that case, they should also object the Islamic militias or jihadis in Iraq and Palestine/Israel being called as - terrorists. Articles like Terrorism in Iraq are more biased than this one. I don't say that their ideology is wrong, I am no one to decide on that. But the means they use to achieve their goals is wrong. No concrete reasons are provided for calling the article biased.
* It is well proven, and not alleged, that Kashmiri militias especially those belonging to Lashkar have close links to Al-Qaeda; one of the main reasons for the organisation being banned in the US. 
* Some of the terrorists do have a national interest. JKLF is the only major terrorist outfit demanding for a free kashmir. Rest all, including Lashkar and Jaish, are in the favour of Kashmir being a part of pakistan. Hence calling some of these militias as pro-Pakistan is justified.
* The terrorists use the term Jihad for mentioning their struggle and hence Waging Jihad is more opt title for section concerned. Regarding the sub-section of Who are these terrorists, I think that the title is most opt as the section provides info regarding the terrorists background. There are no allegations against the terrorists in the section.
To end, if some still object to the seprationists being called as terrorist's, then they should also object to the title given to this article (i.e. Terrorism in Kashmir). Those who cause terrorism are called terrorists and not 'freedom fighters'. Thanks --IncMan 19:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Not all separatists excercise "terrorism" and you can not generalize between different organizations. Just because other articles are biased does NOT mean that this one must be. You can not say that if separatists are at war with India they are terrorists. Not all separatists might even be Muslim, how can you say that they are all "waging Jihad" without actually verifying this. This article is written from an Indian POV and that is very noticable. Perhaps the human rights violation and state terrorism that Indian soldiers have committed should also be added to this article. Also, if some militias are pro-Pakistani then maybe you should clarify that instead of generalizing and covertly implying that they are all hired by Pakistan in order to fight the "innocent" Indian soldiers. Also, calling all the organizations "terrorist", when there are so many is wrong and you know that. This article is undeniably disputed and non-neutral, surely you can see that, so it should be tagged. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 16:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
::You have misinterpreted my comments. I don't say that all separationists are terrorists. For example the Hurriyat Conference; though serparatists they use peaceful ways to achieve their goals and the article does mention that. Again, by terrorists I refer to those people who cause terrorism irrespective of their being separationists or Pakistani or Indian. How about an article on Kashmiri Freedom Movement. That will be great. Plus, the very reason why I have put this article for Peer Review is that the article can be made more neutral. Please, if you can, mention the human rights abuses done by Indian soldiers. As suggested, I have removed some biased external links. The article at no point says that Pakistan HIRES these terrorists; It only mentions that India alleges Pakistan for supporting these terrorists. Besides the article also includes what Pakistan has to say in its defence to such charges. I don't know whether the freedom movement in Kashmir is justified or not, but certainly theres no need to mention much about it in this article as it is about the terrorism and not the ongoing freedom struggle. You declare yrself to be a strong advocate of neutrality but yr anti-India viewpoint (as in the comment left above) says it all. Thanks --IncMan 16:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::I don't have an anti-India viewpoint (I even have a few Indian friends). You can not say that simply because I disagree with having an article in a 100% Indian POV, that I am anti-India. The main reason I am here is because this article, like many other India-related ones, is one-sided and should mention all sides of the story. I stick by what I said before, hope that the peer review will help, and also that you will mention the other sides of the story in order to avoid inserting bias. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
::::My apologies. I have made some edits to make the article look a bit more neutral. Thanks --IncMan 12:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::::Allright. I look forward to seeing the article after you have made it a bit more neutral. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 19:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
===Reasons for reverts-===
1. Pakistani forces are not among those targeted by the insurgents. Those killed are only due to cross-border firing and not due to terrorists acts.
2. Saying that giving Pakistan the entire Kashmir will be the fullfillment of the issue is a POV.
3. Saying that ALL Kashmiris would object Kashmir being a part of India is again a POV. Many Muslim Kashmiris do support India. The popularity of pro-Indian political parties like the ruling PDP and National Conference proves that.
4. Hindus and Buddhists form the majority of the population in Jammu and Ladakh respectively.
It would be better if you could discuss all the points which in yr eyes are biased, so that we could collectively and constructively make necessary changes. Thanks --IncMan June 29, 2005 14:19 (UTC)
Before tackling the issue of NPOV, let us eliminate the inaccuracies.  I suggest that those editors who believe that there are inaccuracies in the article, list those errors here as simple bullet points, without reference to who supports any POV. Each point should refer to a specific section, paragraph and sentence(s). I suggest that you do not sign these points. Please do not comment on the identified "errors" until we are agreed that there are no more to list. We can then identify the individual disputes and tackle them separately. I now open the floor (Theo  (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)):
I see this article totally neutral.
The fact is the Pakistani Military looses it importance if the truth that Jammu Kashmir is a State of India is accepted by Pak. There will be no reason for Pak army to interfere in the governance and democracy of Pak. Even the People of Pak know this. 
The arguments that this is not a neutral article is baseless.
Some more facts showing the secular nature and respect of India for neighbours. Nepal, though a Hindu state has always remained free from any Indian interference of any kind. Bhutan is another example. The very foundation of India is multicultural, multilingual and secular. The proof for this is India Lost its one of the Brightest PM Late Rajiv Gandhi defending Sri Lanka against the Tamilians (LTTE) of Indian origin.
'''
== I see this article as Baised as it can get. =='''
All the refrences are from India. Not a single referance baised on any Neutral. Who gives you the right to think your self as a totaly object person being this closley associated with the whole issue. Not a single reference that makes the baises of the Article is Neutral. You can't just qoute and refer to Baised people and baised work and term the result as totaly NEUTRAL.
And where is the more neutral artical as you promised.
--Samnan 05:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Baseless edits

message: 1. Pakistani forces are not among those targeted by the insurgents. Those killed are only due to cross-border firing and not due to terrorists acts.
2. Saying that giving Pakistan the entire Kashmir will be the fullfillment of the issue is a POV.
3. Saying that ALL Kashmiris would object Kashmir being a part of India is again a POV. Many Muslim Kashmiris do support India. The popularity of pro-Indian political parties like the ruling PDP and National Conference proves that.
4. Hindus and Buddhists form the majority of the population in Jammu and Ladakh respectively.
It would be better if you could discuss all the points which in yr eyes are biased, so that we could collectively and constructively make necessary changes. Thanks --IncMan June 29, 2005 14:19 (UTC)
Before tackling the issue of NPOV, let us eliminate the inaccuracies.  I suggest that those editors who believe that there are inaccuracies in the article, list those errors here as simple bullet points, without reference to who supports any POV. Each point should refer to a specific section, paragraph and sentence(s). I suggest that you do not sign these points. Please do not comment on the identified "errors" until we are agreed that there are no more to list. We can then identify the individual disputes and tackle them separately. I now open the floor (Theo  (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)):
I see this article totally neutral.
The fact is the Pakistani Military looses it importance if the truth that Jammu Kashmir is a State of India is accepted by Pak. There will be no reason for Pak army to interfere in the governance and democracy of Pak. Even the People of Pak know this. 
The arguments that this is not a neutral article is baseless.
Some more facts showing the secular nature and respect of India for neighbours. Nepal, though a Hindu state has always remained free from any Indian interference of any kind. Bhutan is another example. The very foundation of India is multicultural, multilingual and secular. The proof for this is India Lost its one of the Brightest PM Late Rajiv Gandhi defending Sri Lanka against the Tamilians (LTTE) of Indian origin.
'''
== I see this article as Baised as it can get. =='''
All the refrences are from India. Not a single referance baised on any Neutral. Who gives you the right to think your self as a totaly object person being this closley associated with the whole issue. Not a single reference that makes the baises of the Article is Neutral. You can't just qoute and refer to Baised people and baised work and term the result as totaly NEUTRAL.
And where is the more neutral artical as you promised.
--Samnan 05:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for reverts-

message: Well, the article has to be presented in a neutral point of view supported by credible references. There are many sides of the coin here.
* India's viewpoint
* Pakistan's Viewpoint
* Kashmiri viewpoint
**Pro-India
**Anti-India
**Secessionist
* UN's viewpoint
* What the world at large thinks (remember 'world' is not just the US and UK)
The article should report what is going on in Kashmir. Look up the BBC and CNN sites to see how the topic is presented. Terrorism is a loaded word, so it will have to be defined as per all viewpoints. Quote India/Pakistan goverment sites for the two countries' viewpoints, and Kashmiri separatists' sites for theirs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, points noted. But wouldn't such a definition still be termed as POV? eg. India has a definition of terrorism and Pak has one while the secessionist might have yet another. A third author might feel that the indian/pak/US definition of terrorism is loaded and thus "feel" its POV. What would happen in such a case? I accept this will all take time but we have to start somewhere. Idleguy 07:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure both countries's defination of terrorism should have something in common? ---> innocent people being killed? This should be mentioned in the lead at the start, and how it is interpreted by India, Pakistan etc (see list above). Its definately not a POV then. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/NPOV 

message: Can someone list the factually inaccurate words/lines in the article that has prompted a tag (along with POV)? I'll see what I can to reduce any factual errors atleast (since solving POV issues will take a longer time). Tx Idleguy 03:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the factually inaccurate statements cannot be pointed out, I'm going to retag it just as POV instead of "totally disputed". As posted above none has responded to the request and so I'm assuming there isn't any unsourced statement/factually inaccurate lines. Idleguy 07:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove it yet. Usually factuality disputes accompany neutrality problems. Right now my largest concern on the page is the "Statistics" section. Maybe if that were removed, then it would help. Also many of the events are allegations so that is also why there are factuality issues. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concern over the statistics section, though justified, can never be resolved. India would come with a figure on the number of terrorist camps and Pakistan would dismiss the claim. If there are some pieces of information which you feel are factually incorrect, then please list them. --Deepak|वार्ता 19:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: How about removing the section and instead just having a link to the website? That way the statistics are not one-sided or disputed factually. Also usually such a summarisation of one website isn't necessary in an article. The statistics belong on the website itself. I will list other pieces of info soon when I have the time. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of censorship that you are trying to impose on wikipedia articles is astonishing. The statistics section is not very large at the moment, so it should stay in the article, but we should also give the Pakistani or other statistics. What we could do is to create a special article for causalities and statistics, and make sure that Indian, Pakistan and other statistics are given. Other articles have already such special articles:   and others.  --Kefalonia 14:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am fine with having a short separate article with statistics from all sides to link to this one. As for censorship, it would be nice if you could talk in a civil tone especially because I have no need to censor. By the way the articles you showed examples for are of confirmed fatalities not a one-sided estimation of a specific side.  --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 14:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree to some extent. Removing the Statistics Section is not the solution. Besides the article does say that the figures were published by an Indian agency and Pakistan rejects these claims. Just for one section, tagging the entire article as totally disputed is not justfied. However, a similar tag can be placed for the Statistics section. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes but also other concerns should be dealt with. I think we should give it some time, maybe others also want to list some concerns. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 14:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy dispute 

message: This is seriously one sided article. no mention of 6th November 1947 ?
Its intersting to read that in list of training camps in Pakistan some of them are picnic points and far far away from Kashmir.I belive that Pakistan operates Traning camps but they are all in Kashmir region. not at all in any Pakistani area.(Its also the Govt. policy to not to buld any camp in Pakistan )
still Skardu listed, I belive this is also a Picnic point. and talking about Muredka its the headquater of Lashker-e-taiba but no training camp there (they have offices all around pakistan).
i never ever read of any camps in Sind.In sindh Islamic orgnizations are not much active Wisesabre 20:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Seriously dudes... your grasp on the language is appaling. ethnic cleansing is systematic mass murder or eviction of a community. Indian Army may have been heavy handed, it may killed  a few innocent Kashmiis but that cant be termed "ethnic cleansing" infact terrorists have killed more civilians than army. BTW while Indian Army is outrageously accused of ethnic cleansing, "sepratist millitants" and their ilk have been given a free for ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir valley. Kashmiri Pandits didnt go voluntarily, they forced out by the atmosphere of violence and intimidation directed against them by "sepratist militants".
AMbroodEY 08:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken care of your concerns --Deepak|वार्ता 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethic cleansing??? 

message: There are two main problems with this article.
*Scope - The article attempts to discuss everything related to the dispute in Kashmir. I don't see why there should be anything more than a couple of sentences about the history with a reference to the history of the Kashmir conflict.
*Terminology - Throughout the article, the word "terrorist" is consistently and incorrectly used as a synonym for "insurgent". This is particularly egregious in the stats supplied by the Indian government where everything related to the insurgency is labelled "terrorist". This is simple propaganda and shouldn't be dumped into an article without at least some context (if it belongs at all). 
I'd proposed fixing the article by replacing most of the history of the conflict with a "see" reference to the main article, removing everything that's not about terrorism in Kashmir (i.e. everything that's merely related to the insurgency). Removing everything that's simple propaganda from one party to the conflict (the Indian gov't stats) --Lee Hunter 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't objecting to the length of the article. The problem is that it goes far beyond the scope of the title and duplicates another article. This is a real problem and should be fixed. Regarding the word "terrorism", both the articles you point to say that the word is highly subjective, that it is usually used in a pejorative sense, that there is no agreement on the definition, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter etc. For this reason, WP articles generally avoid using the term except where nothing else fits (hence the use in the London bombings). Even the article on Osama bin Laden doesn't use the word terrorist (although it gets reinserted from time to time). There have been acts of terrorism in Kashmir but to describe all insurgents as "terrorists" is completely inappropriate. Parroting the Indian government position is hardly NPOV. --Lee Hunter 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, sometimes the word terrorist is better, and sometimes other words are better. It depends on the context. In many cases (but not all), it may be better to use other words than terrorist. If there is material that is not in the scope of this article it should be moved to another article (without deleting it for only this reason). --Paln 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with what Lee said. You have to stop thinking of all separatists as terrorists which I know is what many Indian sources report. Also the problem isn't references. As I said before you can probably find references for anything, probably even saying that the separatists are using nuclear weapons against Indian troops! The problem is NPOV and you have to be neutral. The article very nicely showed the Indian side before you changed it, now it just removes any little criticism of India there is and basically says that the only ones who have suffered are the Hindus and Sikhs when just as many (actually more) Muslim and other groups have been killed. I also agree with removing the statistics part that is from just one Indian intelligence group. Why don't we use sources from one separatist group to report how many Indian troop training camps there are on the Indian side? So I think that making the article shorter by removing the history section and statistics sections will solve the problems of POV as long as you allow enough criticism of both sides. Both sides are responsible for this. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, I think the article states "Terrorism in Kashmir" which itself should be POV per se since it's hard to draw the line between the "separatists" and the "terrorists". And exactly what purpose would it serve if in your own words an article on the terrorism in kashmir did "report how many Indian troop training camps there are on the Indian side?". fyi the articles DOES state the number of Indian troops in the kashmir region with sources, so I don't see why the alleged terrorist camps and its count should not be mentioned? Both sides should be mentioned and while Pakistan might object to Indian presence in Kashmir (and vice versa) neither labels their armed forces' training camps as "terrorist camps"! After all, this would be the right article where information on the "terror camps" in Kashmir might ideally find mention. Idleguy 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All "Paln" had done in this article is completely taken away any responsibility from the Indian army which has committed human rights violations in the past. And so have the separatists I agree. Completely saying that any attempt at criticizing India is "anti-Indian propaganda" and that the "terrorists" are blamed for everything. Now we can work to make this article shorter and less biased. I don't know what you are trying to say Idleguy but maybe you didn't understand the reason I was making. But I am fine with keeping the section.  I have removed some repeated and pov information from the paragraphs above it. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Paln's edits either. What I intend to point out is that the article's title itself could be construed as POV. As they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so I'm guessing that some Pakistanis or pro-independence Kashmiris might find the article's heading as biased. Indian authors meanwhile might find it apt to include only the terrorist activities as that is what the current title suggests. Idleguy 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope and terminology