Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section header

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, a disputed territory administered by India, are an ongoing issue, ranging from mass killings, forced disappearances, rape, encounter killings, torture and the use of child soldiers by insurgents to political repression and suppression of freedom of speech.

— These (emphasized in bold) words, I think, constitute either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

Hence, I request somebody to please show me the copy of, or post the link to the reliable source. Because the source which has been provided to back these claims doesn't explicitly say that the crimes (e.g. rape, mass killings, etc) occurred in Kashmir. Any thoughts? Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 09:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the sources. Or are you of the opinion that none of these abuses have happened in J&K? Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

The human rights abuses in Kashmir as Kashmir is a broad term as compared to Jammu and Kashmir or Azad Kashmir it should reflect the human rights violations which started way back in 1558 with the Mughal invasion who ended the identity of the independent Kashmir. It should also mention the attrocities done by the Sikh and the Dogra rulers.

The section “Jammu and Kashmir“ though editted by the experienced users, is not balanced. I‘m going to build this article on the reliable sources. The necessary comments if any be made here before overwriting or removing anything from the article.  MehrajMir (Talk) 15:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of what you have included are not exactly pertinent in the context of Human Rights? They are probably copied from other wikipedia page. And also why not start from the Palaeolithic Age? That would be quite great also. Beware of WP:SYNTH. Also you should not try to arbitrarily judge what can or cannot be legitimately termed as "oppression" or "atrocity". Merry Christmas, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Mrt3366 you are not the sole wikipedia user who can judge what to include or exclude. And why not to include this the cause of human rights violations.I request you dont revert it. let, it is not a vandalism and well sourced, to the context cant be removed. MehrajMir (Talk) 01:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC) And what is the section Jammu and Kashmir. The expansion of the article is not copied or pasted. There are Quotes which may seem copied pasted from other wikipedia articles, but which rule says you cant use the text of another wikipedia article. And stop posting at my talk page, you have to discuss, discuss it here. Merry Christmas.  MehrajMir (Talk) 01:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Section “Jammu and Kashmir“ expanded on the reliable sources. Some text borrowed from the article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, as I am the user who published the borrowed text first. It can be checked from the Edit summary of the article. The rules can be seen at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia.  MehrajMir (Talk) 06:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Mehrajmir13 for the umpteenth time, stop your copy-pasting based on your personal POV. You didn't expand anything, you shuffled content, that's it and nothing more. This was in relation to your last few extensive duplication (not duplicity, mind you), which I was behoved to revert since there is a page dedicated to exactly this topic and it was a spin-off of this section article. We don't need two wikipedia pages asserting the same thing. You've done quite a lot to disrupt the improvement of the page, I can safely conclude now. Please stop doing it.

  Another thing is that I notice you only duplicated content from those sections of those pages that depict Human rights abuses by Indian Armed forces in the Kashmir region but you safely neglected to adduce the other side of the argument (Pakistan's relentless and ruthless support to Islamic Terrorists which TWO Pakistani Presidents have already admitted). Since you're duplicating contents, you could have also copied from Persecution of Hindus←This page (precisely this section and this section) or Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir or this section from Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir where you copied all your recent stuff from, that would have been equally unhelpful but at least it would have showed your neutral intents, alas you didn't. That's extremely biased editing; stop pushing your own POV.

″The fact that Indian Sunnis have tolerated the presence of their Shia minority better than anywhere else in the Islamic world, and also allowed Sufi missionaries freedom to proselytize everywhere, are clear indications that Indians may have indeed taught immigrant Muslims the advantages of religious tolerance.″

Nicholas F. Gier, American Academy of Religion, Gonzaga University, May, 2006

BTW, don't label this as an personal attack on you. It's simply an act of alerting in good faith.

In the hopes of making you see the larger picture I will give you something to read in good faith. Read this and this and this twice and do not leave a word. Don't think that it's only Hindus and Indians, it goes both ways.

I have taken the liberty to emphasize a few words. I sincerely hope that it helps clear out the air of anti-Indian bias a little bit. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article is not about anti India or anti Pakistan, it is about the human rights violations in Kashmir. You‘ve contributed a lot representing a minority faction of people who constitue 3% of the total population of Kashmir. But unfortunately you have ignored a vast majority of people called muslims, sufferers of mass rape, sleeping in mass graves, disappeared, tortured and killed. And when someone reflects them in any article you either overwrite or revert that. Sometimes I‘ve a feeling that ....... ) I request you please watch this video clip and stop your actions which are not only disruptive but also biased. I‘m not going to restore my edits but I will present the facts based on references to restore the meaning of the article. Merry Christmas.  MehrajMir (Talk) 05:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Mehrajmir13 stop this charade of ignorance. Your passive-aggressive behaviour is not going to work here. You're the one who started all this. Don't forget that. You know it probably better than me (since you are the one who is duplicating complete section after section about this) that this minority was not always a minority. Their status has been relegated today because of the insurgency and heinous torture. And who said that the suffering of minority is not equal in importance to the suffering of majority (and this is a case where Majority is oppressing and torturing the minority by keeping them from speaking freely)? Stop your obnoxious POV-pushing. Now it is becoming almost abhorrent, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• {{copyviocore}} is not a means to keep important and relevant sections containing information you probably find hard-to-digest, hidden perpetually, mind you. Explain which part was copied and I will solve it in a minute. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Indian security forces

India has also created auxiliaries made up from captured or surrendered militants. These groups have targeted reporters and human rights activists, they have also been accused of committing over 200 rapes in an attempt to intimidate the local population. And the security forces have also recruited ex service personal to set up village defense committees, these groups have carried out extra judicial killings, assaults and other human rights violations. These two statements presented are totally baseless. Both the statements are backed by unknown offline sources. There are so many online sources avaliable enough to prove them false. Village defence committees doesn‘t exist in the Kashmir valley, the centre of human rights violations. Please provide online sources so that these huge statements can be verified and if you cant then I‘ll build this section which will be backed by online sources. MehrajMir (Talk) 14:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that content, and it is backed by very reliable sources indeed. Where do you come of saying they are not? Read WP:SOURCEACCESS Darkness Shines (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Mughal Empire

What the hell does the Mughal Empire have to do with this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Very good question. The answer lies in the sources provided which mentions that Mughals have destroyed the identity of being Kashmir as Independent, and till date Kashmir is ruled by the foreign rulers.  MehrajMir (Talk) 15:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And do the sources speak of human rights abuses against the Kashmiri population by the Mughal Empire, I know the first source does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That‘s why there is no section on Mughals. There‘s only what the source provides. Dont revert the text.  MehrajMir (Talk) 15:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Your sources do not speak of human rights violations, read WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You havent read the article nor the sources. I advise you read the article and the sources carefully. The lead section which contains three lines describes the cause for starting the human rights violations.  MehrajMir (Talk) 15:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources support the content at all, it is pure WP:OR I have had to report your editwarring as you obviously cannot be bothered to self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Mehrajmir13, stop pushing your own POV based on your personal syntheses of the sources. Pay heed to everything Darkness Shines says, his comments are all valid. This is becoming a tad disruptive on your end. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock

I've locked the article because of the recent edit-warring. The only other choice would have been multiple blocks. I strongly urge you to reach a consensus about the content dispute. Any editor who seeks to advocate their version after the lock has expired without a clear consensus may be blocked without warning.

WP:COPYVIO does not apply unless the material included in the article is copied from outside Wikipedia and is copyrighted material. For material copied from other Wikipedia articles, WP:COPYWITHIN applies. Unlike COPYVIO, COPYWITHIN is not policy but a guideline. As far as I know, there is no exemption from edit-warring for violating COPYWITHIN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I assumed it fell under WP:REUSE under attribution[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The lead of that policy makes it clear that it applies to use of Wikipedia material outside Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, strange I could have sworn that everything has to be attributed if copying within Wiki. I shall ask MoodriddenGirl which policy I think I seem to know Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are guidelines in COPYWITHIN about attribution, but, as I said, it's not policy. Please let me know if you find out anything additional from Moonriddengirl.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I would consider that using content in violation of the license it was released under is a copyright violation. There is really no difference between copying CC-BY-SA text from a third party website without attribution, and doing the same from elsewhere on Wikipedia. Until properly attributed, both are copyright violations. As its necessary to follow COPYWITHIN to avoid violating copyright, COPYWITHIN should really be a policy, and I've now initiated an RFC to that effect in response to this discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are separate articles on Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir which were previously parts of Kashmir. If you dont need the background and something from the history, then why keep this article. Kashmir includes all parts which are presently divided and here should be a general article which I had done by adding facts from the history to the article.

"DS" first reverted my edits with his edit summaries "it does not pertain here" when I proved how it pertains he reverted it again and again this time with his edit summaries "copyvio". I reverted the edit and asked him to prove from where copied this time his edit summary was "you have copy pasted it, dont restore" and the page got protected.

Now explaining my edits which consists of three sections as per Wikipedia:Layout:

1) Lead section: This section based on two statements both are backed by reliable sources. It is not copy pasted either within or outside WP.

2) Sick and dogra rule: This section uses quotes to explain the human rights abuses from the page Kashmir, I‘ll attribute them. Another long quote is from Sir Walter Roper Lawrence, the page was created by me and not needs attribution.

3) Line of control: The first section describes LOC and the other sections describes human rights violations. Every statement backed by reliable source. Not copy pasted apart from a incident which is also mentioned in wikipedia article 2008 Kashmir unrest. You can check it is not copy pasted and If still it has to be attributed I‘ll attribute it, but there is no policy which says dont use a single incident in different articles.

One more edit which I added to the section “Paramilitary forces“ backed by a reliable source was not copypasted. And if DS can prove from where I have copy pasted all the edits then surely I doesnt belong to here.  MehrajMir (Talk) 02:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart of course your sources do not mention human rights violations at all. as I told you in the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do they talk about "Human rights Violations", Mehrajmir13? I didn't think so. You cannot impute your own inference and labellings to a reliable source unless it explicitly supports your claim. Like I said, even if it were a tyrannosaur eating people for breakfast in its kingdom you cannot term it as a Human Rights abuse until a group of reliable sources do so. Savvy? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 03:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• My above comment is sufficient and provides answer to all your questions. The talk is about the copypaste for which you removed the content therefore dont runaway. Regarding the sources ofcource they talk and back what is provided in the article and the article is about the human rights violations. DS and Mrt may have a tie in between, but they cant prove right as wrong.  MehrajMir (Talk) 04:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually you have responded to none. Again, none of your sources mention HRV. So why are you adding them to the article? The source for the Mughal Empire do not mention HRV. Your sources for the section on Sikh and Dogra rule do not mention HRV. It is wrong in that India did not invade Kashmir, Kashmir joined India after this was signed. You removed academic sources and replaced them with newspaper articles. Nothing in the LOC section has anything to do with HRV. Placing landmines is not a HRV. You linked to a disambiguation page, god only knows why. Would you like me to continue? Darkness Shines (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Mehraj, we have been very patient with you so far. In addition to what DS states above, I think it's wrong for you to insinuate that we (DS and I) have a "tie" between us or that we are trying to prove "right" as "wrong". Like I said, do not post your own synthesis in the articles. This is not your personal web-host. Disengage right now. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for being so patient with me. The source which backs the lead section, clearly mentions the oppression during Mughal and Sikh rules. It says:

  For centuries, Kashmir has struggled against oppressive rule in one form or another. First the Mughal King Akbar invaded the region in the sixteenth century, ending its era as a sovereign State. The Mughals were followed by the Pathans, the Sicks and then the British who sold the land, lakes and populace to Dogra rulers.

  Regarding the invasion at the hands of India, Pakistan and China read this source backs the statement provided in the article.I‘ll make it easier for you:

  Parts of present-day Kashmir are occupied by India, Pakistan and China. When you try to locate the territory of Kashmir on a world map, you will find it partitioned into Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK, called 'Azad Kashmir' and 'Northern Areas', in Pakistan), India Occupied Kashmir (IOK, called ‘Jammu and Kashmir‘ includind ‘Ladakh‘, in India) and areas such as Aksai Chin and Shasam Valley under Chinese control part of the (‘Xinjian autonomous region‘ in China).

  Regarding Landmines, I‘ll advice you to read the International Law governing Landmines.  MehrajMir (Talk) 06:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear sweet god in heaven read what you wrote, none of that is HRV. None of it at all. India is not a signatory to the Ottawa Treaty, hence not a HRV. Your sources do not call it a HRV. Invasion and annexation by the Mughals is not a HRV. India did not invade, hence not a HRV. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly and in today's world the connotation of the phrase "human rights" is very different from few centuries earlier as is the case with the word Kashmir. These are all irrelevant here in this article. Then let's start covering what the reliable sources have to say about human savagery from Paleolithic ages and let's put all that nonsense into Human rights abuses article by framing them as Human rights abuses. Will it be okay? That was an extreme example, but still the answer will be, nope. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• DS out of his ignorance is saying that oppression, enacting inhumane laws, separating families, placing landmines by which civilians are killed and disabled are not HR violations. I‘ll suggest him to read some of the books and articles on HR violations, such as [2], [3], [4] and go back and see who removed the book sources for news papers. Dont make false accusations. For Mrt3366, read my previous comment , if you dont need the background and history then there is no need of this article as per Article already exists as all three sections of current version have this template in place {Main article}.  MehrajMir (Talk) 03:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, and for the final time. None of what you added is a HRV. Unless the sources talk about HRV then it ain't going in, read what I wrote above Re landmines. You cannot add it to this article. Also, this is the parent article which gives an overview of the sub articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• You dont have any reason for non inclusion of the content. You are repeating the accusations already proved as baseless. I‘m giving you a final oppurtunity, and if you failed this time too as you did earlier; I‘m going to add back the content. Thank you.  MehrajMir (Talk) 05:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• You are repeating the accusations already proved as baseless. - As it seems to me your cogent false accusations against DS (and occasionally myself) apply more to you. We have already given you multiple chances but as it seems you didn't read WP:SYNTH. Like I told you many times before, human savagery from Paleolithic ages may not be inserted into Human rights abuses article even though they meet the loose definition of the phrase Human rights abuse because relevance and context matters.

  Now, if you, disregarding all of our strictures and explanations of the nuances regarding the impermissibility of your plans, follow through with your edit it will be equally quickly reverted. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Read what Bbb23 wrote, you have no consensus for inclusion of this tripe. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Support for militants

Has no place here, supporting militant groups is not a HRV. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Unprotection request

DarknessShines has made this request on my talk page. Comments please. --regentspark (comment) 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

About that, no need to unlock the page I don't want to have to revert anything on this page. He can submit his source for scrutiny in the talk or even ORN. It doesn't have to go to the article directly. We have a process called WP:BRD. Now let's follow it. I support the protection for the time being. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You can submit your comment on Wikipedia:ORN#Human_rights_abuses_in_Kashmir. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's see if there's consensus on the source first. DS, you'll have to wait. --regentspark (comment) 18:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Where is the link?

It is resolved, I think. Hidden by Mrt3366 to save space and avoid wading through what is now superfluous clutter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently the article says: "Human rights watch has also accused the Indian security forces of using children as spy's and messengers, although the Indian government denies this allegation." (source:Hartjen, Clayton; S. Priyadarsini (2011). The Global Victimization of Children: Problems and Solutions (2012 ed.). Springer. p. 106. ISBN 978-1461421788.)  Where is the link to this page 106? Google preview does not show it. Google search doesn't give link to any credible site, nor does it deposit any other info. If I don't get a response within a few days I am going to delete the statement. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC) A link is not required by policy. The source most certainly supports the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC) "The source most certainly supports the content." — I presume you have the book with you? If that's the case then my humble request is that you scan the book and send me the copy. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC) No. However I added that content and know it is in the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC) You don't have the book? Then send me the link. If you can't do anything other than asking me to defer to your claims then I am sorry I can't accept that. I can't just take your word for it. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I can see it on Gbooks. So can you if you use a proxy server set in the UK. Remove it and you will be reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I have acquired the page. Read it. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC) It doesn't specifically talk about Kashmir. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC) It says: "For example, in Chhattisgarh in India's Northeast, Maoist insurgents reportedly increased their recruitment of children when violence increased in 2005. Some of these recruits were as young as 14 and 15 years of age (CITE). Prior to taking power in Nepal, Maoists also relied on children to fill their armed ranks (CITE). Although Indian government denies recruiting children at all, Human rights watch (CITE) contends that children were being used by police and government as spies, informants, messengers and the like in that corner of the subcontinent." --doesn't specify that it is in Kashmir. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC) The context is obvious, the source explicitly states that India and Indian backed miltias use children. Stop whitewashing. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Nope.."The context is obvious" is your inference. It is not obvious to me. It talks about Chhattisgarh, Nepal, etc how is the context obvious? I am not whitewashing. Stop scrabbling about for excuses to vituperate, malign others. Your brusqueness is unneeded here or anywhere else. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC) We have a NOR & RSN noticeboard, take it there. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I know what I am doing. Maybe I will take them to RSN. But first I need to make sure that I am doing enough to get my points across to you. But my experiences from whatever little interactions we two have had, taught me that these are probably all in vain. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) Again with you and the edit warring, you are now on 3RR. Get a third opinion as requested. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC) (out)Mrt3366 stop removing the content, the source supports it as well you know. 11:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC) DS, please make sure you read my latest comments on my talk page. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not convinced by the quote above because it is talking about a district nowhere near Kashmir, it specifies the northeast, and refers to "that corner" that Kashmir is not in. Even after reading this source, "Children and youth are involved with insurgent groups in a number of states including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir" and "Armed groups, including Maoists and groups in Jammu and Kashmir and in the north-east, were reported to be using children." I just do not see the state police of state-sponsored organizations connection here. Unless I misunderstand who the Maoists are, DS - I think a better source is needed.--v/r - TP 15:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Maoists are not Police. They are not a government-authorised entity. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Tom "In all of these conflict-affected districts, child soldiers are being recruited by both parties to the conflict" Is Kashmir a conflict-affected district? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) What both parties? There are at least 3-4 parties to the conflict in Kashmir. There is no clear link between Kashmir and recruitment of Child-soldiers by Indian forces. Your 2nd source said, "In a province of India, five-year and ten year old boys are found serving the state police" - The quote, as probably any one will be able to notice, isn't specifying which province it is. Your source just isn't saying so. We are not allowed to fling our own guesses at our readers. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Hang on Mrt3366, give me a minute to try an uninvolved editor approach. Your approach isnt working. DS - I understand and I agree that Kashmir is most definitely a 'conflict-affected' district. However, a strict reading of the sources does not appear to settle that and on an article as controversial as this, I think a strict reading is preferred.--v/r - TP 16:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)See Maoism in India. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Gotta disagree with you Tom, I am not about to leave common sense at the door. We have a source which says the Indian state recruits children for use by the armed forces, In all of these conflict-affected districts. That is good enough for me. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC) And being good enough for you, it's fine for you to hold that opinion and share it with others. But the question isn't whether it's good enough for you, it's whether it is good enough for Wikipedia and that's why we're here discussing it. As a matter of factual accuracy, I'm inclined to believe you. As a matter in verifiability, the ethnic points of view on the subject, and the folks who (like Mrt3366) would cry foul were it not more definitively sourced, I think you need a source that includes: 1) An explicit statement that the context is Kashmir, 2) An explicit statement that children are being used, and 3) An explicit statement that the State, Government, or state-sponsored militias/armed-groups are using children. If all three elements are not in a source (a source containing all three elements versus a source for each), then it is open to refutation and controversy. Can you provide a source that meets these three, what I think are reasonable, criteria?--v/r - TP 17:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC) "The case of child soldiers is not new in India. Since there are several non-state armed groups fighting on the ground of ideology, ethnicity and linguistic, regional, religious and poverty. These armed groups have recruited child soldiers. In addition to the non-state armed groups, there are cases of children being recruited for the state security force as well. In a province of India, five-year and ten year old boys are found serving the state police57. The following information reflects the situation of children working as child soldiers in India. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) reported that currently, at least 118 of India’s 604 districts are facing armed anti-state activities. In all of these conflict-affected districts, child soldiers are being recruited by both parties to the conflict (ALRC: 2007)58." How does that not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It's not explicit. It may be implied, but the problem with implied statements is that they can be taken different ways. It fails the first part of what I think would be acceptable criteria for the suggested sentence.--v/r - TP 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC) (out)As usual, I am correct, Funny that. "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13] However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states; however the problem of the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than this in the country."[5] From the source cited in the Conflict study centre report. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not saying you're wrong, I've only said that the presented sources don't explicitly support it. With this source, I think it fails on part 2 of my proposed criteria. It does not explicitly state that the government is using child soldiers, only that they have been used by someone.--v/r - TP 18:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) What? So what the hell does children are employed by both parties to the conflict mean? Please do not try my patience. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I said that all three parts should be in a single source. Do those two passages come from a single source or multiple sources?--v/r - TP 18:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC) The last one is from a single source, I gave you the link man. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Are "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities." and "In all of these conflict-affected districts, child soldiers are being recruited by both parties to the conflict" in the same source? All three elements that I describe above need to be in a single source for my support.--v/r - TP 19:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Am I not being very clear today? Yes that is all in the same source. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC) It doesn't look like that DS. The first sentence is sourced to The Naxalite Challenge: Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh while the second appears to be unsourced (or rather, sourced only to the article from which you got the quote - not sure how reliable HRA is). --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Christ on a bike. The entire quote above is sourced to a single source. I do not care where they are sourcing it from. Human Rights Asia is a perfectly reliable source. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC) (since no one has pointed this out so far to RP) It is not a question of the reliability of the source. It is a question of relevance and WP:SYNTH. I don't give a damn about what is implied, as TParis said the content has to be explicitly supported by the source. But currently it's too indirect and vague. And DS, please keep your histrionics out of the debate, okay? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Just checking DS. Gotta make sure. The entire paragraph is taken from A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre to the 6th session of the UN Human Rights Council and posted on Human Rights Asia. I guess the only question is whether this counts as a reliable source or not. --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Obviously the Asian Legal Resource Centre is reliable, they work for the UN[6] for the most part. Anyway, if the AHRC find them credible enough to cite and work with then they are good enough for Wiki. BTW it would be the AHRC being cited, not the ALRC. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Only a statement "that the government is using child soldiers" I think won't be enough; it also has to mention that they are using them in Kashmir, that too in a single reliable source. How hard could it be to understand this? Mr. T Paris, I'm afraid DS is amenable to neither of our approaches. But I am grateful to you for your efforts, you kindly handle this. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC) "Christ on a bike. The entire quote above is sourced to a single source." - nope. Tparis's comments, if I am not dead wrong, are concerned with his three criteria mentioned above. Of which 1. (An explicit statement that the context is Kashmir) and 3. (An explicit statement that the State, Government, or state-sponsored militias/armed-groups are using children) are missing from the source quoted by DS. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC) "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13] However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states; however the problem of the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than this in the country." All in one source FFS. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC) I'm satisfied. Proceed.--v/r - TP 02:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I'm not satisfied. What is both parties? Who explains that? For the umpteenth time the source isn't saying that Indian POLICE/ARMY is recruiting children in KASHMIR. To further complicate that, Government of India is explicit in its denial against the accusation of using child soldiers anywhere. In this context I genuinely think it's undue. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Who explains what the phrase "both parties" stands for here?? (Quotes from the source posted by Darkness Shines) The situation in Manipur and Chhattisgarh is not unique. Child soldiers are used in several parts of the country, in the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Sikkim, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.[4] [..] Child soldiers are also used in the mainly Hindu versus Muslim religious conflicts throughout India. both factions have created their own self-styled armed brigades. India’s Naxalite movement and the anti-state sentiments in the north-eastern states are both spreading out, increasing the areas affected by armed conflicts in the country. Child soldiers are considered as being highly expendable pawns in these conflicts. [..] There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13] However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states; however the problem of the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than this in the country. BTW the only states where the ALRC source explicitly ascribed child-soldiers to Indian Police is Manipur and Chattisgarh. They are nowhere near Kashmir. In Kashmir Children are being used, but the current source doesn't say it's Indian Police. Anti-state militias and insurgents are using children. Hartjen, Clayton; S. Priyadarsini (2011). The Global Victimization of Children: Problems and Solutions (2012 ed.). Springer. page 106 says, "children as young as 10 are reported to be used by Pakistan-based militants in Jammu & Kashmir as messengers and couriers, but some have also been used to throw grenades and plant bombs." This source says, ″Children and youth are involved with insurgent groups in a number of states including Assam, Manipur, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkand, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Jammu and Kashmir″ Do these point to Indian forces? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You asked for a 3O, you got it. And this will be mentioned in this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC) I didn't ask for a 3O, you did. I have no problems with 3O as long as it is objectively correct. I don't believe its subject to personal interpretations. The source doesn't claim what you attribute to it, period! Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC) So when you went running to Bb it was to drop me in the shite then. And you are happy with a 3O so long as it agrees with you. Anyway, the source stands as we have a neutral 3O who says it is fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC) You may call it whatever you want. Assume good faith DS! I didn't say that. First, I don't understand why TParis suddenly yielded to your fallacious arguments, I didn't notice any efforts on your part except for endless repetition. Where does it say that Indian Army or Police recruited children in Kashmir? How hard could it be? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 14:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC) We are far from a consensus on this issue. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC) My change is based on this source. I overlooked the sentence about both parties when I argued about it earlier. For the record, neither of you asked for my involvement. I wikistalk Bbb23's talk page but DS's name sparked my interest. We've argued over sources on other pages.--v/r - TP 18:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Now, "both parties" is a clear enough phrase for you, especially when that sentence don't explicitly mention Kashmir either? You know very well that the problem with implied statements is that they can be taken different ways. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC) "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict.(Criteria 2) The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13] However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states (Criteria 1); however the problem of the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than this in the country....State-sponsored militias usually recruit children based on the promise of future jobs at the State police department.(Criteria 3)" All in this source. Bolded words are mine.--v/r - TP 15:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC) It is my understanding that the criteria should be: An explicit statement that children are being used in Kashmir, and An explicit statement that the State, Government, or state-sponsored militias/armed-groups are using those children that are used in Kashmir. Where does the source meet my second criteria?? How do you know that that allegation from UN had anything to do with kashmir?? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Because of the explicit use of the name Kashmir preempting my bolded "Criteria 1". Except for the sentence following my use of ellipsis, the preceeding sentences are in the exact order and position as in the source. There has been no modification to change the context. --v/r - TP 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for third party comment

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This source (ALRC source) has been used to support the claim "Human rights watch has also accused the Indian security forces of using child soldiers", wait, it's not that. It gets complicated; the line is in the article Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Abuses in kashmir, not too hard to remember, is it??? The article is about abuses that are taking place in kashmir, not anywhere else in Indian territory! Needless to say, that article is a highly controversial one. The claim also is unsurprisingly a contentious assertion of fact. Thus it would be preferable and to a large extent needed that the (ALRC page) source unambiguously support the claim. Alas it doesn't. The source doesn't explicitly say that "Indian security forces use child-soldiers in Kashmir" or anything like that. That ALRC source is fraught with not-so-clear innuendos when it comes to Kashmir. The matter should have ended right there.

But some editors are trying to prove that the following claim is enough, "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13]" —— So I decided to dig deep to understand what exactly is being claimed and what parties they are referring to.
′The Naxalite Challenge: Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh′ source no 12 doesn't even mention children or Kashmir or Indian Armed forces while revealing that "the naxalites' sphere of influence has spread in the past year and a half from 76 districts across nine States to 118 districts in 12 States." —— I would like to argue that this undermines the relevance of that claim since the whole page doesn't mention Indian armed forces or Kashmir or even the word "Child".
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: Thirty-fifth session, CRC/C/15/Add.228, 26 February 2004 source no 13 —— says nothing, nothing whatsoever, about Indian Armed Forces' use of children nor does it even imply anything as to who might be the recruiters of child-soldiers. I think given the controversial status of the article and the fact that Indian government denies using Children at all, a stricter enforcement of WP:SYNTH is merited.

P.S. I believe Indian forces do use children in central (Chattisgarh) and north-eastern (Manipur) parts of India (far from kashmir), albeit the current source does not specify that it is going on in Kashmir also. Children are being used in Kashmir, though the sources does not explicitly claim that it's by Indian forces. But, there are numerous sources that unambiguously point to anti-state militia and naxalites ([7][8], etc). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You've already had 2 independent neutral 3rd parties come in and oppose your position.--v/r - TP 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have got some even better. And to show that I am and always will be neutral about this, let me be the one to post it here.

  In Jammu and Kashmir, the Indian army has armed local Village Defence Committees (VDC) – primarily Hindus – in Doda, Udhampur and the border districts to assist security forces in anti-insurgency operations.(HRW, Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant Groups Continue, op. cit.; Bukhari, S., "Militants kill 19 in Jammu", The Hindu, 21/7/99.) So far more than 15,000 inhabitants, reportedly including teenagers, have joined these self-defence groups.("Jammu & Kashmir: the new vigilantes: despite lack of proper training and sophisticated arms, Village Defence Committees are proving invaluable in the fight against militancy in the state", India Today, 11/10/99.) At the Asia-Pacific Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers in May 2000 the representative of the state government of Jammu and Kashmir denied the involvement of children in VDCs. He acknowledged that there may have been some instances of young boys taking up arms to defend themselves under attack, but that there was "no policy to encourage young boys to become members of the Village Defence Committees."

This proves beyond doubt that Indian Armed Forces are in fact employing children. Should we modify the article to accommodate some of this? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Human rights violations in Balochistan

Has been removed from the see also section, why? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What was Human rights violations in Balochistan doing there in the first place? Mar4d (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What about it? Relevance please. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The relevance is obvious, but here "The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." Are you of the opinion that these articles are not remotely related at all? A policy based reason is all that is required here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And how are they tangentially or even remotely related? Btw, per WP:SEEALSO, Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. Can't see any "common sense" or relevance or "links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic" sorry. Your judgement seems loose and we'd probably end up with dozens of human rights articles in see-also if it were to be applied. Mar4d (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact they are right next to each other? And both articles are about HRV? So no, you are wrong, as usual and as you have given no reason within policy for this not to be included, as I asked, then I shall restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a few hours ago, here in this very page Mar4d pretty shrewdly tried to make a case that "Pakistan" is relevant, hence I would humbly like to suggest that so is Baluchistan, Sindh, along with other Indian parts of Kashmir provided that these have articles. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop twisting and misquoting my words to come up with your own conclusion. Yes, Pakistan is relevant. Pakistan disputes Kashmir, it rejects Indian occupation of Kashmir. What's that got anything to do with Balochistan or Sindh? They're two different topics. It was listed there for no reason and seems to be as much relevant as adding Human rights in Somalia into the article. Also, stop dragging in Pakistan into every single thread. We are only here to discuss whether or not the groups fighting India in Kashmir are separatist - and so far, neither you or DS have proven anything to the contrary. Mar4d (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Somalia in Pakistan now? Is it?
It is perfectly rational to think that one reader, after reading this article, may want to explore more about Human rights abuses in other disturbed territories of either country. Hence, Human rights abuses in Baluchistan, Sindh, Azad Kashmir and JnK all are relevant in See also section.
Why you are so dead-against their inclusion strikes me as a bit odd, but I am not surprised. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Every now and then in the articles relating to Kashmir, Mrt and DS are making fuss by their aggressive attitude. I dont know why but I‘ve an understanding that either they work for the oppressors in Kashmir or for the Hindu extremist groups. I think WP should take note of this. Their contribution may be checked and they may be blocked because they think that they own WP.  MehrajMir (Talk) 13:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Erm, what? Now I am an oppressor or Hindu extremist? Please stop with the personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No mention of abuse by anti-India/ Hindu groups in J & K

This article doesn't mention violence perpetrated by anti-India/ Hindu groups in J & K. Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC) it is there, it is titled para-military groups, that is why I missed it, para-military is misused here, better would be separatist groups. Going ahead Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, these group are neither separatist nor are they secessionist. The terrorist groups in J&K are for the most part Pakistani backed terrorist groups, the source used also say this so please do not change it again. Any group which fights to have J&K integrated into Pakistan are not separatist. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Aren't they fighting to separate Kashmir from India? Either as an independent state or to merge with Pakistan. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people probably are wanting to see an independent Kashmir, some are probably wanting to see it merged into Pakistan, some perhaps have other motives based more on the bigotry of religious intolerance or whatever. I doubt that all can be grouped under any one label. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A separatist does not fight to have their country absorbed into another nation, they fight for independence. As I said, the majority of terrorist and militant groups fighting in J&K are in fact used be Pakistan to conduct a proxy war. There was one group that was fighting for independence, they have since stopped fighting as the Pakistani backed groups attacked them as well as the Indian security forces. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Your definition of secession is incorrect, isn't the Irish movement in Northern Ireland about joining the Republic or Ireland? The fighters want Kashmir to separate from India, to remain independent, to merge with Pakistan, and as Sitush said as a part of a campaign to join the Commonwealth of believers. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The Irish republican groups are not secessionists, they are fighting for a reunification of Ireland. That is entirely different to groups founded, trained and supported by Pakistan to fight a proxy war in J&K. I am curious as to your sources for these secessionist groups BTW. Other than the JKLF which as I said, gave up armed conflict in 94. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

They are called so on the Secession page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

DS, I am assuming that anyone who wants to separate from a country is a secessionist, what he does afterwards is part b of the process. We are discussing language and its use, why drag politics into it, please leave Pakistan alone for a while. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

They are peregrine terrorists aided and smuggled from Pakistan who are for obvious reasons secessionist or separatist, both of you are correct. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• How is this heading “Freedom fighters“ because they are actually for the masses of people of Kashmir fighting for freedom. They may be terrorists for occupiers India and Pakistan, as were Baghat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad freedom fighters for India and terrorists for British in India.  MehrajMir (Talk) 07:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So secessionist is factual and non-judgemental. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it is correct/neutral only in conjunction with the mention of the fact that they are Pakistan-backed militants or insurgents or terrorists or paramilitary (pick your word of choice and see this, this and this). The militants are provided with "weapons, training, advice and planning assistance" in Punjab and Kashmir by the ISI which is "coordinating the shipment of arms from the Pakistani side of Kashmir to the Indian side, where Muslim insurgents are waging a protracted war"[9]. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, it is not a political thing which I am bringing into it, it is a very sad fact. And I think you will find the sources bear me out on this issue. A foreign nation founding, training and supporting groups to fight in another nation does not make those group secessionist. Please provide the sources which call these groups secessionist, and we can assign due weight when compared to the sources which state they are in fact Pakistani backed terrorists. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Per lit. definition, seccession "is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, or especially a political entity. Threats of secession can also be a strategy for achieving more limited goals" This definition very accurately fits all parties/groups who want to separate Kashmir from India, whether for achieving an independent state of for merging to Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan's stance on the Kashmir conflict is clear, that the Kashmiri people have the right to self-determination. It is undisputed that a vocal segment of the Kashmiri population is not happy with Indian rule and this is the catalyst for the separatist conflict in the valley. Questions like whom they get their support from or why they get support are trivial and subordinate. The first thing that matters is the prevailing ideology, which is that there are many disgruntled elements among the native Kashmiris who want separation. And as Mehrajmir pointed out, tarring the "terrorism" brush into it is a bigoted, biased Indian and western approach to the issue, because for other people, those so-called militants are freedom fighters resisting against an oppressive, evil and occupying/invasive foreign military force with half a million soldiers in the region (for the easily-offended, excuse the adjectives if you will, but I had to use them to present the narrative from the other end of the tunnel). Mar4d (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? How many people in J&K think of LeT as "freedom fighters"? Or JeM? Or Hizbul Mujahideen? Give me a few sources which call these terrorists "freedom fighters" Given they kill anyone and have all been involved in massive HRV and ethnic cleansing of the Pandits, I suspect you will have trouble finding any. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW to save you time, LeT has been designated a terrorist group by Pakistan. JeM is also banned in Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My comment was crystal clear, and I shall reiterate yet again that there is support for separatism among a large section of Kashmiris. I'll turn around the tables and ask you to give me sources which say that separatism doesn't exist among some Kashmiris... and you'll obviously have trouble finding many. Kashmiri Pandits are not the only ones affected by the conflict, all Kashmiris have been affected (i.e. both Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims) and are a party to the conflict, and that prominently includes HR violations by the military. The Kashmiri Pandit hoopla is too often used as a parrot point to cover up and somehow negate the atrocities committed by the state and that is not quite going to work here, because Wikipedia works on NPOV - not partisan or half-covered views. Mar4d (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@MRT3366: Were Maqbool Butt and Afzal Guru, Punjabis or Pathans? @DS: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, it is a subjective label. Secessionists is a more neutral label. @Mar4d and Mehrajmir: The ethnic cleansing of the Pandits is well documented. It isn't a hoopl. Secondly, Muslims have the poorest development indices of all religious groups in India, apparently a result of Kafir subjugation. Why doesn't Pakistan try to do something about that, why not worry about 150 million Muslims, (more than the number almost as many as in Pakistan) the Kokanis, the Dakhanis, the Mhoplas, the Gujaratis, the Hyderabadis... why just bother about a few million Kashmiris. Aren't all Indian Muslims worthy the benevolence of Pakistan? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mar4d, you seem to be asking DS to prove a negative. That is nearly always impossible and is an unreasonable request. - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, a question related to a subject closer home, are Irish groups secessionist or not? What do sources call them? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Which Irish groups? There are more groups than I care to name, arguing for numerous positions. Most, regardless of their political/religious etc position, are usually referred to a terrorists in mainland UK news sources but I'm sure that some niche supportive sources will term them otherwise. From my various spells spent in both the North and South of Ireland, it seems to be much the same there. As William Gladstone said after the failure of his third attempt to fix what was then known as the "Irish Question": "Every time I find a solution, they change the question." - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The nationalists, are they secessionists or not, pl provide evidence if possible. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Yogesh: I have not denied that Pandits haven't suffered. I was merely pointing out that the Pandit argument is too often used to cover up the sufferings of other Kashmiris and that in the interests of WP:NPOV, we should cover both sides, not just be subjected to one side. That includes both Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims. Regarding your second point, last time I checked, Pakistan's population was over 180 million and unless there is a fundamental flaw in mathematics, I am not able to comprehend how 150 million is "more than the number in Pakistan" As for your third point, the Kashmir conflict is of interest to Pakistan because Pakistan is a party in the conflict and relevant to any political developments that concern the territorial dispute. I do not understand how the 150 million Muslims of India, who are Indian citizens, should be relevant to this argument. Mar4d (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Are all Pakistanis Muslims? Regarding citizenship are Kashmiris Japanese citizens? Regarding territorial disputes can't Pakistanis manufacture one? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh and Mar4d I think these questions are digressions. Let's stick to the topic. Some of the Pakistan-backed paramilitary groups are terrorist because of secessionist reasons, yes but at the end of the day they use "terror as a means to gain political concessions". Don't get me wrong, I am not asking anyone to label these groups as "terrorists"; that is not our job but implore everybody to eschew redundantly insulting Indian freedom fighters by likening them to banned communal organizations like LeT, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Al-qaeeda or Jaish-e-Mohammed who strive to terrorize and subjugate the kafirs (Infidels) merely by virtue of their religious beliefs.

"We are fighting Pakistan's war in Kashmir and if it withdraws its support, the war would be fought inside Pakistan," ——Sayeed Salahudeen (leader of Hizbul Mujahideen)

Come on. These terrorists are the lowest kind of fighters if, at all, they can classified as that. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

READ Mar4d: you contended aggressively on Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Denying the obvious? that "Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of Pakistan" and that it has nothing to do with India, where I urged others "not to omit the Indian POV altogether" but you argued that "Mrt's arguments are inherently flawed" you even called me a "nationalist" editor though I doubt you know my nationality at all. You couldn't have cared less about international law then.
Now here just like a typical ██████ Pakistani (you're a Pakistani aren't you?), you are conveniently trying to legitimize Pakistan's subversive meddling in Indian states by saying that "the Kashmir conflict is of interest to Pakistan because Pakistan is a party in the conflict", are you intentionally this tendentious?! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Paki an ethnic slur? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, yes Paki is an ethnic slur, MrT had best redact it. To all others, I have asked you for sources for your POV, none are forthcoming and Mar4d as usual responded with the usual bluster when asked. Unless someone has sources, then this conversation is moot. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• @Mrt3366: Ignoring you're emotional outburst above, what does my statement above have to do anything with the Gilgit-Baltistan article? My stance was clear on that article and still is. Where did I say India isn't a party in the Kashmir conflict? The issue was whether it was WP:DUE enough to get mention in the lead. That was an entirely separate and unrelated issue and yet here you are again trying to digress the topic. I don't care what you're nationality is neither am I interested in knowing (even though the assumption is obvious), the point is that you love to paste and rant on hardcore Indian POV everywhere which at times gets out of hand and needs to be balanced. Also, all separatists are not militants/rebels (or your favourite label "terrorists") as you assume, there are normal, ordinary Kashmiri civilians who advocate seccession. Quit playing about the terrorism card everywhere. We're not even discussing terrorism, we're discussing the causes of separatism and human rights violations have a big role to play in that. Mar4d (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, given the existence of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, and the recent backdrop over the removal of historical information from this article.... this article serves little to no purpose other than being a redundant WP:FORK. It will be heading for WP:AFD pretty soon if everything here turns out to be inconclusive. Mar4d (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:SUMMARY before holding your breath till you turn blue. This is the parent article and is a summary of the others. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Secessionist: evidence

1. Akbar: "Kashmir where a violent secessionist struggle has been engineered by Muslim radicals..."
2. Puri: "There is a frankly secessionist movement in Kashmir...".
3. Prakash: "Years of propaganda... had started... showing result... for the secessionist outfits..."
4. Gupta: "India attributed... secessionist attitude... to... Pakistan".
5. Chaddha:. "The secessionist movement..."
6. Hagert: "By 1989... a full-blown secessionist insurrection has raged against the Indian state."

You have one decent source here, the first four are not even RS. And Ganguly actually backs what I have been saying. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And Chadha unsurprisingly also supports when I have been saying. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• You need to listen what your central minister Jairam Ramesh says, and it‘s not from past it‘s from todays newspaper Hindustan times. What Kashmir needs is the right political engagement, not a strategy influenced by spy and security agencies. It’s the political vacuum that allowed the growth of militant, secessionist groups.  MehrajMir (Talk) 02:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No my central minister at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi DS, I commend you highly for this effort, but I don't think Sitush will allow Terrorism in Northern India: Jammu and Kashmir and the Punjab by Gyan Publishing House. p. 115. ISBN 978-81-7835-703-4 ← this to be included. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with the blanket ban on Gyan, it should be on a case to case basis, recently I had argued that a Gyan book written by a Fulbright scholar was a RS, I think no one contradicted at RS notice board. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Pakistan’s support of terrorist groups working in Afghanistan and Kashmir is to maintain balance with India, according to a recently released WikiLeaks cable."[10] (emphases added by me). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani backed terrorist sources

More to come. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, the point is whether we can use the term "secessionist", whether ISI supports them or whether CIA has engineered the attacks is besides the point. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, as stated already, it is about due weight. Look, if country A had tried and failed three times to take a place by force of arms, and then resorts to a proxy war in which they hope to achieve their aims via death by a thousand cuts then those groups are not secessionist. You need sources which state explicitly which groups are secessionist and which are not (IE State backed terrorists). And most of your sources are not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

OK! If they are not secessionist, what are they? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A proxy invasion force. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

See "Pakistan has continued to wage a water war against India by other means, including politically, diplomatically, and by proxy, especially by rearing transnational extremists on its soil to strike terror in India's heart and bleed it in J&K" Water, Peace, and War: Confronting the Global Water Crisis p49. Or Politics in India: Structure, Process and Policy p178, or any hundreds of sources which say this. My poin is, if you put these terrorist groups down as "secessionist" when they are in fact not, I will have little option but to expand upon their actual links to Pakistan along with everything else. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The Indian central minister admits that they are running Kashmir by its spy agencies and military might and it is the indian political system that gave birth to millitancy and secessionist groups. Today there‘s no millitancy and still when the Indian govt hangs a kashmiri secretly they need to impose curfew and block internet services through out the valley which continued for a month and still the valley is in shock and has not emerged from it. Ask any one on the street of the valley what he wants, he will tell you “Azadi“ Independence.  MehrajMir (Talk) 03:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So far, all the comments from DS and Mrt have been along the lines of "Pakistan this, Pakistan that" and blah blah - the traditional close-minded narrative which tends to overlook the foundations/roots of the conflict in the first place. They haven't made a single response as to what the actual root causes are of separatism in Kashmir or why many Kashmiris are separatist. First, you have the separatist ideology and secession sentiments among the native people, and then everything comes second (i.e. questions of support/funding etc). It's interesting how they are conveniently trying to ignore the first and foremost important point and failing sorely. It's the typical head-in-sand approach. It's also funny we're even debating whether or not these people are secessionists. There are native Kashmiris and they want independence, what other qualification do you need to be called a secessionist? Mar4d (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@DS: I think I understand your argument, the people may be secessionist but the perpetrators of brutalities aren't Kashmiris, they are hirelings of ISI/ CIA et al. Perhaps true. As that is basically what even the sources that I have provided seem to suggest. Now that makes the situation complicated, what do we call them? How do we title the sub-section? Foreign mercenaries? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Both Asif Zardari, the current Prez and Pervez Musharraf, ex-president of Pakistani, admitted to creating and supporting terrorists to fight Indian troops in Kashmir. [11], [12] Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh, we should call them what they are, but WP:TERRORIST says we may not, hence we use militants. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mar4d, "They are native Kashmiri" (presuming you meant this rather than there) Let us see, LeT Hafiz Muhammad Saeed(Pakistani) Abdullah Yusuf Azzam(Palestinian) & Zafar Iqbal(Pakistani) Are you sure about your "native Kashmiri" claim? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Or how about JeM? Are they "native Kashmiri"? Founded by Masood Azhar(Pakistani) with the help of (unsurprisingly the ISI) and recruits from "small towns and madrasas in the rural areas of Pakistan" Now are you really, really sure these guys are "native Kashmiri"? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Or Harkat-ul-Mujahideen? "Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly Harkat-ul-Ansar), all pro-Pakistani outfits but made up of differing ethnic groups such as Afghans, Uzbeks and even Sudanese." Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism in South and Southeast Asia: Causes, Dynamics, Solutions p91. See Mar how I have sources, yet you seem to have not managed a single one as yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mard, Mehraj: There is of-course a secessionist environment in J&K, the question is whether the HRA have been committed by the ISA/ CIA or by Kashmiri natives acting on their own will? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The only (mostly) indigenous group is Hizbul Mujahideen. They draw up to 70% of their recruits from J&K. However they have been tied to Jamaat-e-Islami Everyday Occupations: Experiencing Militarism in South Asia and the Middle East p273 and have been described as their military wing. All terrorist groups operating in the region have committed substantial HRV Human Rights and Societies in Transition: Causes, Consequences, Responses p372. So we can describe HM as an indigenous secessionist group who are funded and backed by Pakistan, the rest cannot be described as such as they were exported from Pakistan to fight a proxy war. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DS: Are you sure about your "native Kashmiri" claim? - Yasin Malik isn't Kashmiri? Maqbool Bhat wasn't Kashmiri? What about Yasin Malik and Sayeed Salahudeen? Your argument fails point-blank. Mar4d (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• ″In April 2012 Farman Ali Shinwari a former member of kashmiri separatist groups Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami was appointed chief of al-Qaeda in Pakistan.″ (source: "Farman Shinwari: New Al Qaeda leader, Kashmir jihad expert". Rediff.com. July 18, 2012.) --Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And again Mar. where are your sources? You have yet to actually give one. BTW, I had already said that Hizbul Mujahideen where Kashmiri. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)