Talk:Rape during the Kashmir conflict/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Estimates

@Problematics: Hey mate. Since you reinstated the Khurram Parvez's figure of 7,000, it turns out that that content was actually added by me initially in this edit. But later as I said in this edit, it occurred to me that his estimate might also have been misled like the ones of Amit Ranjan and Seema Kazi, as both of them misinterpreted this source - [1]. Also Khurram Parvez does not specify/clarify if he was mentioning war rapes, and more importantly, he offers no clues as to the source or basis of his calculations. Now we have no other reliable sources that give figures close to Khurram Parvez's estimate. So I don't think its constructive to have that mention in the article. Pinging @Kautilya3: if he is interested to take a look on this. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Tyler. I was reading Parvez's interview on Scroll.in and this is what he said;

According to our estimates of sexualised and gendered violence, there are 7,000 cases.

So this is the estimate of JKCCS in context of the conflict and not the government registration figures (which include non-war rape) quoted by Kazi and Ranjan.

This source also lends credence to that 7000 is the total of cases documented by JKCCS. Problematics (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if they *documented* 7000 cases, then its totally fine. I will have to admit that I'm quite shocked to see such a huge number! If possible, can you dig up the corresponding content in the original report from the JKCCS site - [2]. I'm not able to find it. From the 'main report' in that link, I could only find this:

Prepared over two years, this report is a part of the continuing work to understand and analyze the role of the Indian State in Jammu and Kashmir [...]that has resulted in widespread and systematic violence including the disappearance of 8000+ persons, 70,000+ deaths, 6000+ unknown, unmarked and mass graves, and countless cases of torture and sexual violence.

Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Redirected again

Found that this article is fork of an already redirected article after consensus, kindly don't recreate unless you have consensus for it. Capitals00 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: have you read the edit summary of mine of this section? I have also notified on the noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a new article created a few days ago. I never heard of anybody needing any consensus to create an aricle. What on earth are you talking about?

There is nothing in common between this article and the old Rape in Jammu and Kashmir that was merged. I don't think the old merge decision applies to this article at all.

Pinging RegentsPark for his advice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are re-creating an article that ended up getting redirected, then you need consensus to recreate it. Article at present form is just like what Rape in Jammu and Kashmir was. Capitals00 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I second Kautilya. The article in the present stage is supported by dozens of reliable and scholarly sources, and has a lot of own and elaborate content, all of which cannot go into other broader articles. Also this article has been linked in several other broader articles where the overdue content was cleaned up, so now merging this to any other article would be very naive. The situations for the deletion of previous article were different, many of the editors in that forum were bothered that the article was poorly sourced and that it was small in length. (Anyways I hardly see any consensus there, I wonder how that was closed!) But that is not the case now. I think, editors of this article (including myself) have put a decent effort to bring it to an acceptable standard. And is still being worked up to get further developed. So, if you are still that interested to delete this, you may open another forum here for the editors to review the current article and decide if it should be deleted. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and clarification on 'Kashmir conflict'

See Kashmir conflict, "The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict primarily between India and Pakistan, having started just after the partition of India in 1947." While whole Rape in Kashmir conflict was India only. If we are going to include anything about Pakistan which is necessary since its 'Kashmir conflict', I think it would be neutral. Capitals00 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There are plenty of high-quality reliable sources that focus on India's internal conflict now, e.g., Bose, Sumantra (2003), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01173-2. Your contentions hold no water. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You can look up the actual definition of "Kashmir conflict" if you want to, who has denied that they don't focus on internal conflicts of India? But it doesn't means we should be entirely ignoring Pakistan administered Kashmir. And your source from 2009 that you refer as "now" has greatly focused on Pakistan as well[3]. Capitals00 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead of Kashmir conflict also clearly states:

The present conflict is in Kashmir Valley.

I hope that should give you an idea. And in any case, you can feel free to add any content regarding the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir, with significant source(s). There are hardly any reliable sources that discuss regarding that. So until you can prove otherwise, your argument that the current-state article is lacking a NPOV is baseless. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Article has been expanded already. Capitals00 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Forced marriages

@Tyler Durden, By the definition of rape [4], forced marriages cannot be considered as rapes because you never know what happened after marriage was done, after some days it can happen mutually. These cases are indeed human right abuses but not rapes clearly. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I understand what you're saying. But my point is, the aspect of forced marriages is pretty much closely related to the subject of 'rape in the conflict' and so let it stay here. Because please try to understand my concern, the entries which you were removing have been inserted in this article after removing them from other two-three broader articles while cleaning them up, and this article's page was linked there. So when you contest the content's deletion, it would lead to the complete omitting of those particular 'forced marriages' abuses by the militants from the Wikipedia, which is utterly naive. It brings back the dilemma of — where to add those incidents of abuse again, in which of the broader human rights abuse articles. And we'll probably see those entries once again in every broader article related to the content. Editor Problematics has perhaps realized these issues and hence relaxed with listing them separately below the incidents of rape in here. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Durden Well you can use this section for human right abuses in Kashmir, but the addition of these here is beyond the very scope of this article. We are only concerned with rapes not forced marriages. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 11:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Page move

@User:Capitals00, Why is it controversial to move this page, it discusses the specific topic of rape after insurgency only. so the proper name should be Rape in Kashmir Insurgency. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 15:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You need to file WP:RM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Reasons for the move

• Kautilya3, I agree that I am very much involved here. But I don't see why the page's move is problematic and objectionable.
• Its not like there should not be an article with title Rape in Kashmir Insurgency on Wikipedia to discuss content in that regard, of which dozens of reliable and scholarly sources are available, as cited in the article. No Wikipedia policy says such article should not exist. And no editor till now has reasonably explained why that name is inappropriate when its corresponding content has several scholarly sources that discuss the same.
• The entire article's content in the current state including the lead, all of which is well sourced, fully and clearly appropriates the title Rape in Kashmir insurgency, more than anything.
• Much of the discussion has already taken place bringing no positive change, and as I have already said, it is greatly distracting from the work of improving this article. If any interested editor(s) really want to have a broader article to cover the entire history of sexual abuse in Kashmir conflict, they can do so by creating another article with the title Rape in Kashmir conflict. This article doesn't stop anyone from doing so, in any way. This shall just remain as a subpage for that article, if created. Same like Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is to Human rights abuses in Kashmir.
• I had earlier totally supported adding conflict-related sexual abuse content from Pakistan administered Kashmir(PAK) also, but that idea brought no good. The article faced many disruptive edits because of it. Zero constructive contributions were made following that idea:

• First[5] the 1947 violence of tribal invasion was added in an inappropriate background section (it is a background to what in the article?), and one BBC report of a rape case[6] in PAK (where the report also said "first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused") was brought and blatantly added even to the lead without considering WP:DUE weight. I explained all this on this talk page above[7]. And yet it was added again by WP:EDITWARRING.[8]
• Next[9] the 1947 tribesmen violence is added in a section named 'Pakistan Administered Kashmir' while that violence actually happened both in today's India administered Kashmir(IAK) and PAK (the major part of which took place in IAK(Baramulla), and also it is a historical event occurred when all the region was legally under one princely state of J&K, with neither IAK nor PAK technically existing). In the same edit, events that plainly occurred during a Shia-Sunni conflict in PAK, that apparently have no relation to Kashmir conflict, were brought and added. The edit also included the insertion of a line in 'Pakistan Administered Kashmir' that clearly talks about the violence of Pakistani militants in IAK. I pointed this on the talk page[10]. Some editor said that the Shia-Sunni violence is somehow connected to Kashmir conflict, but produced no WP:RS backing his claim in spite of my insisting. And yet again, the same content, as it is, was added by WP:EDITWARRING without addressing any of these issues.[11] [12]
• Most embarrassing thing in all this affair is, none of the responsible editors who want to go with the idea, meaningfully created a 'History' section at the top and added stuff on Tribesmen atrocities in October 1947, 1947 Jammu massacres, Mirpur Massacre of 1947 etc in it, or worked to improve upon 'Pakistan Administered Kashmir' section which was added at the bottom which potentially had only one BBC reported case in it, during any of these edit wars. This clearly shows the desperate will to add anything related to PAK without sticking to the objective, ironically in the name of neutrality. And one user was saying he also wants to document content on sexual abuse in Chinese administered Kashmir where there is almost no population.
• Another funny thing is, despite all my efforts in explaining these issues point by point in every step, in this talk page, some user cited my edits saying they are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, posting a notice here!

• The editor Owais Khursheed apparently and clearly created this article as a subpage to Human rights abuses in Kashmir. See that page, it faces none of these problems. It precisely covers the scope which this article covers in its current shape. Perhaps the architects of that article with their good wisdom decided to document the content, after understanding what a reader normally expects from the article titled Human rights abuses in Kashmir, where even the word 'conflict' is not added in the title. For good, it has not become an article like Human rights in India. And none of the non-conflict or historical human rights abuses in Kashmir are documented in there, although they occurred in Kashmir. While what has been happening in this page is — simply exploiting and playing (WP:GAMING) with the words, chosen in good faith by the article's creator for the title.
• So, to avoid all this nonsense, I am moving the article to Rape in Kashmir Insurgency using WP:SNOW. Later if any editor wants to contend the title or content of this article, he/she may do so by taking this to various resolution forums on Wikipedia. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: Funny that even your wall of texts could not clarify how WP:IDONTLIKEIT needs to be violated on this page. First you edit warred to enforce your likeness and now you are page move warring over it? It seems we are going to see more disruption from you. You are not getting the fact that you need to request page move (WP:RM). Capitals00 (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Seems as though the article is really touching heights of WP:CENSOR. I see that first TylerDurden agreed to allow Pakistani violence. But now he says it should not be here when enough information was discovered? And pretending that he needs no consensus to make page moves while others need to? WP:GAME. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

B-class???

How come this page is B-class? Compare it to what is B-class in the quality scale: this version of Manmohan Singh. I will change it to what is the appropriate class per quality scale. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed to start class. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I rated this article B-class when it was created as per the criteria of WikiProject India. It was in fact the best new article that I ever reviewed.

But now the quality is going down quite rapidly, with all kinds of junk being added. Please be aware of what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. It is certainly not an essay, or a report, or a tabliod newspaper article. It needs to be a high-level summary and of a length that is right for the subject. You will only damage the article by adding all kinds of junk. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Please clean up. What is there? Quality of the article is undoubtedly above any such content. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't make good articles by doing random Google searches and insert everything that crops up. I don't have much hopes for this article. It is bound to become a POV cesspit sooner or later, unless all the contributors take responsibility to maintain its quality. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Problematics: Kindly take a note of the above discussion here. Please do not add everything you find about the subject. The article will terribly lose its quality by doing so. By making this a newspaper article, we'll be greatly compromising its encyclopedic value and the page will simply become a "POV cesspit", which the readers will regret going through. — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Which parts do you have an issue with? Problematics (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have pointed them out in my recent edits. Just keep in mind, the idea discussed in this thread here, before adding content to the article. Please don't add repetitive POVs and event/case-specific content. Better try to avoid newspaper articles and non-scholarly sources anymore, unless you find exceptionally significant material in them. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Chronological orders?

@Tyler Durden: made the original edit[13], @Problematics: changed the order,[14] despite the paragraph that he moved below noted the first reported incidents in entire conflict. I reordered it[15] and Problematics has reverted[16]. I would prefer the original revision where the section started with "There have been many incidents of rape in the Jammu and Kashmir princely state, in October 1947". Capitals00 (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Its not about any editor's personal preference. The thing is, I first put the order that way because, the First Kashmir War violence (including rape) clearly occurred in October 1947, precisely on and around 24 October. Whereas, though the violence in Jammu began to occur since somewhere around September, the large scale massacres started to take place only in early November (I have assumed that rape also started to happen then itself).

The communal riots took place in Jammu after instrument of accession was signed, after Sheikh Abdullah took over as head of administration – that is November. [...] Some riots were taking place earlier also, but mass killings, when the convoys went to Pakistan and were butchered, happened when Sheikh Abdullah was head of the administration. He didn’t intervene or could not. I don’t know the reasons but perhaps his feeling was that the Muslims in Jammu were not his supporters.[17]

But...then again, I remembered that there was this explicit report this is well-documented in the Timeline of the Kashmir conflict page, after Problematics changed the order:

14 October: The activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Akalis mount attacks on villages of the Jammu district, killing Muslims and setting houses on fire,[75] said to be the beginning of 1947 Jammu violence.[76]

So, I left the order after Problematics modified it, since its hard for me (or anyone) to tell, when rape started to occur among all the various events in Jammu massacres. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Capitals00: What gives? — Tyler Durden (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

[18]? Problem is that "There have been many incidents of rape in the Jammu and Kashmir princely state" should be still written in the first paragraph of the section, that means first paragraph needs to be:- "There have been many incidents of rape in the Jammu and Kashmir princely state. A large number of Muslim women were abducted and raped in the Jammu region of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, ...." Capitals00 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I modified the paragraph as you suggested. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that the Kashmir State Forces and the Police were under the command of British officers till the end of September. And, these officers were placed there precisely to ensure that the minorities would be protected. So, whatever violence occurred till the end of September is expected to be minor, and it is wrong to blow it up.

In early October, the Poonch Rebellion started, after which the State authorities retaliated on the local Muslims in the Jammu province (but not in the Kashmir Valley). That meant that the Hindu and Sikh militants were given a free hand and possibly assisted by the State. It is a complicated story to tell. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

According to Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, there were 2,000 Muslim refugees from Jammu in Sialkot by 10 October 1947. That is really tiny compared to the over 60,000 Hindu/Sikh refugees in the Jammu city alone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I'm aware of what you are saying. But the violence due to tribal invasion started on 24 October. Though in tiny scale initially, and with increase in the scale gradually after early October, the violence in Jammu started well before 24 October. Anyway, please specify the order that you are suggesting in this context. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya, 'September' was added in this edit by Probs. Just saying. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Merger proposal

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

---

I propose this article to be merged and redirected to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir.

This article, created on 19 April violates WP:SYNTH and shares its origins with Rape in Jammu and Kashmir, which was redirected and merged to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir after consensus.

I and other few editors have observed that this article is a fork of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir,[19] and was created without expanding these existing article.

WP:CFORK:

A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

Exactly, this fork article has been target of gross POV pushing, anyone can view history of article and confirm that it happens just every single day that one editor removes all reliably sourced(Routledge, Oxford) information about rapes in Pakistan Kashmir(WP:CENSOR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT) even after knowing that Kashmir under Pakistan is part of Kashmir conflict, and then other editor would argue how sources about Kashmir Conflict doesn't mention rape in Pakistan, when dozens of them do.[20][21][22]

For ceasing such disruption, page move took place, and there was no consensus to change the title thus article was reverted to original title. But that was not the end, now a couple of editors, who didn't had their preferred page title are hoping another page move request in place of dropping the stick, just because they don't want to deny Pakistan to be a part of Kashmir conflict, yet continue censor information about incidents in Pakistan. As such, POV pushing and edit warring never ends.

Not to mention this article has been unnecessarily expanded, for example the whole laundry list of non-notable incidents.

Since the article includes about 35 sources,(per this version) it could be redirected and merged with Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir. These 3 articles are still small. Capitals00 (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• No. Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. It won't help the readers in accessing the info...Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 13:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - per WP:NPOV. This is the only way to end continued disruption that is contrary to the mentioned policies. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• No. --Saqib (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have no interest in this dispute. I note though that there is nothing in the title that limits the scope of the article to cover only events from 1988 onward. The Kashmir conflict, a conflict between India and Pakistan, the oldest dispute before the United Nations, is now, this year, in its 70th year. Sexual violence, primarily directly related to that conflict, and secondarily indirectly related, for that entire period, is within the scope of the article. That is how the title is parsed in the English language. Whether the insurgency, which began in 1988 is directly (or even indirectly) a part of that conflict is not clear. Ironically, the official Pakistani POV is that it is not, that Pakistan is not involved in this quest for freedom by the Kashmiris, and the official Indian POV is that it is, that India is a victim of terrorism planted in Indian soil by Pakistan. I do note that the UN Secretary General's Report on Sexual Violence in Conflict, 2016, names 19 geographical regions, including Sri Lanka and Nepal in South Asia, but fails to mention Kashmir. That of course does not mean that the Indian security forces have not committed sexual violence in Kashmir (they very likely have) but that their excesses, including those involving sexual violence, are not included in the UN's count of "Sexual violence in conflict." I wish the POV warriors here all the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• No comment as to the substance of this proposal, as I intend to remain uninvolved here; but the fact is that if I were closing this at this moment, there would be no policy based arguments on which to base my decision. None of the people actually voting on the proposal have provided anything to back up their votes. Vanamonde (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, WP:NPOV doesn't require editors to drag Pakistan into every other article. It still is NPOV, when it is mentioning rape by militants. Rape by both sides of the Kashmir Insurgency are stated in the article, thus this is not a WP:CFORK. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Merge While there are several human rights related articles on Kashmir conflict, there is no need for separate rape article. Will there be articles Killings in Kashmir conflict, Stone pelting in Kashmir conflict etc?--Human3015 ^TALK  19:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually there is one such: Stone Pelting in Kashmir, which was recently created. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - Article seems to be in clear violation of consensus of this RfC, and there are already multiple pages covering the same human rights issues.Redhat101 Talk 03:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

That RfC (actually RfM) was for that specific article and content. There was no decision to salt the topic. The present article has completely different content. So the old decision has no relevance to this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• No - This RfM is purely a waste of time because the merge-proponents already argued for it in the above RM and it was clear that there was no consensus for Merge. To rehash the argument against it, Wartime sexual violence (or Conflict-related sexual violence) is well-recognized as a topic, and the sources say that it is occurring in Jammu and Kashmir on a considerable scale. So this topic merits a separate article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• No As per above. — Tyler Durden ((talk)) 02:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• No The topic is notable in and of itself and should not be merged. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - In agreement with Megalibrarygirl and others; the topic is notable in and of itself and should not be merged. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

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

New lead changes

I have reverted the new edits of Mar4d to the article,[23] because it underestimated the extent of the rape carried out by pakistani militants and military. I would recall here that we have entirely ignored the 2005 incident, limiting it with 1947 incident while specifically blaming "hindus and sikhs" on lead would be pov pushing. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose your revert and argument. It holds no water. How would it be POV pushing if it is merely summarizing the reliable content in this section of the body? How it underestimated the extent of the rape carried out from Pakistani side, when it also mentioned them, along with the "Hindu and Sikh mobs"? As I had said before, the 2005 incident was ignored because it is one case of rape, in which one woman was involved, and its WP:UNDUE to add about it. Now in this edit, you've added three citations on that incident. I don't know what to say. — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't means that we are going to summarize only what we have mentioned in the article? Having a general statement about entire scenario which is backed by sources is not illegible. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to tell you that your arguments are quite poorly formed. Please come up with better ones if you want to push this.

But it doesn't means that we are going to summarize only what we have mentioned in the article? — That's what we are exactly supposed to do in the lead as per MOS:LEAD.

Having a general statement about entire scenario... — For the ten thousandth time: you are making a general statement about one single rape incident of one woman, that too in the lead, adding 3 citations for it.

You still have given no valid reason for why removed "Hindu and Sikh mobs" when it is a genuine summary of what is well described in the body and well-sourced. In the very lead, you want to mention "Pakistani armed tribesmen", "Pakistani militants" and even "Pakistani troops", for which we could unfortunately find no supporting sources (for rape in 1947 Mirpur massacre), except the undue one(single case) which you are repeatedly bringing, as I said above; but for some magical reason you feel that the mention of "Hindu and Sikh mobs" would be "POV pushing".

On the contrary, what you're exactly doing is nothing but mere and blatant POV pushing. This is totally unreasonable and ridiculous! — Tyler Durden (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• D4iNa4, you haven't actually provided any reason for the revert which makes it contentious. As per WP:LEAD, the opening is meant to summarise the entire article. Moreover, reliable sources are provided for that part of the violence. Your argument that it ought to be removed because it "underestimates" other rapes is baseless and groundless. I am going to give you the opportunity to explain why you think only the Pakistani incidents need to be quoted, while the Indian incidents are not for the 1947 period. Because that is not only counter to WP:RS, but also a WP:POV violation. Mar4d (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletions

@Haxxorsid:, why did you remove sourced content here? What is WP:DIS about this content? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, answered at your talk page. Thanks for pinging. - -- Haxxorsid

Sorry, all content-related discussion needs to happen here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Haxxorsid: you haven't yet responded to my queries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Kenney source

The claim that the "militants have also committed rape to some extent, although not comparable in scale with that by the Indian state forces" is not supported by the Jeffrey Kenney source. The editor (now blocked sock) who added it applied his own personal interpretation, something which is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore I am once again removing this fictitious reference from the article. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I was finding this sentence to be original research, but couldn't bother enough, I will come back once again and check other sources if they are interpreted correctly. Capitals00 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So the IP has provided the quote[24] of the source, but there could be multiple meanings of this quote, such as "military carried out more sexual assaults than general public", not just militants, and source has to compare with the militants, in this source it is not. Capitals00 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Problematic editing

@Capitals00: Can you please explain this edit of yours? What on earth were you starting? The content you added in the Background section is irrelevant, its not background to this subject and is out of the scope of this article. And apart from that, all you cited was one report of sexual abuse of which no source said it was used as a weapon of war. Also BBC[25] explicitly states: This is the first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused. Now how can you possibly justify inserting this in the lead? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't do blanket reversion of the entire edit just because a single sentence didn't fit the source, instead you had to reword it. It seems there are more than these few scholarly sources that concern Pakistan administered Kashmir. I am removing the example from as weapon of war. Would rather make separate section for Pakistan if there are sources talking about multiple cases.

Also the background does fit it, it shows that when did rape actually started to take place in this entire Kashmir conflict, as noted by reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit! You finally understood. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Content was not well placed, but not useless either, I have created new section for Pakistan. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello D4iNa4, this article is specifically for covering war rape in the present post-1989 conflict in Kashmir Valley. Please add your material to Rape in Pakistan, Sectarian violence in Pakistan, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 or other more suitable pages for your content. Thank you. Problematics (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why are category:Rape in India, category:Human rights abuses in India, category:Controversies in India, but not the Pakistani equivalents? Unless of course Pakistanis are truly virtuous. WP:POV, perhaps? Jim1138 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Jim1138 that this article is suffering with WP:Censorship. Capitals00, TylerDurden apparently agreed to include Pakistani rape violence in Kashmir, here we have over 10 reliable sources but a new SPA is censoring them. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, solid scholarly sources discussing war rape by Pakistanis inside the insurgency areas since 1990, feel welcome to add. If its not that then its not for this article. Problematics (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Then make such a senseless article title too, "Rape in Kashmir since 1989" and have it deleted soon. You are finding a excuse to carry on your disruptive censorship as we can see. Thus you are lacking sense. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:PERSONAL. Problematics (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed to add the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir, if any.

But there are a lot of problems with the content added by D4iNa4. It clearly suffers from WP:COATRACK. Also it was again written and placed inappropriately.

The 1947 violence by Pakistani tribesmen happened in and around Baramulla, which is today Indian administered Kashmir, they were not the incidents occurred in Pakistan administered Kashmir, as the user wrote. And as I have already said, that content does not belong here. Its out of the scope of this article. Those Pakistani tribesmen atrocities are not meant to be covered in Human rights abuses in Kashmir or Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, and apparently they are not. The same is the case with this article. Capitals00 himself removed it later, and it has to be covered in First Kashmir War and Baramulla(its duly covered in this page).

The 1970s incidents in PAK are also not related to this article. The content clearly specifies that it happened when the excessive military was deployed due to Shia-Sunni conflicts, that has got nothing to do with Kashmir conflict.

Pakistani militants have been also involved in rape of Kashmiri women and torturing of prisoners.: This line again, as per source, is talking about the violence by militants in IAK, not PAK, and it has been extensively covered in this article in an explicit section.

So again we're left with one single case of sexual abuse reported by BBC, of which I have already told, is blatantly WP:UNDUE to build content in this article.

And User:D4iNa4, kindly refrain from personal attacks and discuss only the substance. That's not at all a good practice for a responsible and rational editor of Wikipedia. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Tyler Durden. If we stick by the article title, all the events that occurred as part of the Kashmir conflict are included. There is no time restriction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

In answer to Jim1138, I think we have better information available for India than for Pakistan. Also, more editors interested in writing about India (including positive and negative stuff). Nevertheless, do you have a view on the issue being discussed here? Dos this article need to cover the events in Pakistan-administered Kashmir? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The article name does not appear to differentiate between the two sections, so per WP:WEIGHT, it should include Pakistan-administered Kashmir as well. Jim1138 (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This article's lead and background specifies the context as the insurgency in Kashmir since 1989/90. The scholarly sources and media particularly discuss rape in Kashmir conflict in the context of the insurgency between security forces and militants. A lot of the content discussing Pakistan-administered Kashmir is jumbled up. The 1947 tribal rapes cannot be included since that is part of the 1947 war, just as rape during Jammu massacres cannot be fitted into this article. The events in Gilgit, rooted in sectarianism in Pakistan, already has its own page. (1988 Gilgit Massacre). It has no relation to Kashmir conflict. Problematics (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jim1138 too. So, there is no time or geographical restriction. The name of the article, as chosen by its creator, covers all of the Kashmir conflict. Please focus on "Kashmiris" (all the inhabitants of Kashmir) and their trauma rather than worrying about India or Pakistan. All artificial limitations placed on the scope amount to WP:POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Yes, I agree too this. And in that case, out of the proposed content till now, the 1947 tribesmen atrocities alone can be included. — Tyler Durden (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The conflict in Kashmir which this article is seemingly covering is the post 1989 conflict. This is not just specified in the lead and background, but this is how scholarly sources discuss rape in this conflict. All rape within a particular territory and its long history does not meet the WP:DUE requirements. Please ensure that we describe a subject according to the scholarly narratives. Problematics (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

TylerDurden sorry but you are not seeing the fact that the source that talks about the atrocities by Pakistani forces since October 1947 talks about whole Kashmir region that was later divided as J & K, Gilgit, Azad Kashmir. There are sources[26][27] that mention their atrocities (rape, looting, lynching) in Muzaffarabad (now Pakistan), Srinagar (now India), etc. The 1970s events are also important since they tell how Pakistan military got back Kashmir under their 100% control. Problematics is just a disruptive SPA who is engaged in WP:CENSORSHIP. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The 1970s events are also important since they tell how Pakistan military got back Kashmir under their 100% control.:

@D4iNa4: Do you have WP:RS that support this? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

These events did not occur in the 1970s, they occurred in the 1980s, more a part of Sunni-Shia conflict than the Kashmir conflict. Problematics (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Until Pakistani military intervened. Capitals00 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I am going to oppose inclusion of historical events not part of the post-1989 Kashmir insurgency. Including rapes by tribals and rapes in 1947 Jammu massacres. This will just create confusion for readers since this article is quite obviously discussing only the insurgency in Kashmir and all the article's material sourced to scholarly references related to use as weapon of war, prosecution etc is discussing Kashmir conflict as the current conflict in the Valley since 1989. I oppose any anachronisation of the article's pre-existing content. Problematics (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hope you won't edit war over it. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• My two cents: Unless the sources explicitly demonstrate that the single incident in Azad Kashmir or the event in Gilgit are a result of the Kashmir conflict/insurgency, linking the two would qualify as WP:OR and uncorroborated WP:SYNTHESIS. The current title of this article suggests that this is not a general article covering rape incidents in Kashmir. Also as someone above noted, some of the events attributed to Pakistani armed groups during the 47 war didn't actually occur inside Pakistani territory. Mar4d (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet they did occurred in present day Pakistani territory, and and carried out by Pakistani forces in present day J&K too. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Your first link mentions Baramulla, which is not in Pakistani Kashmir. Also, you are synthesizing the 1947 war with the scope of this article which, as I pointed above, is problematic. Secondly, please try to avoid sources published by Vij Books. Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"The first place that the invaders attacked was Muzaffarabad town, where they looted, raped and killed many" by Oxford University book. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Since above consensus is clear enough to include Pakistan material, I have restored it. Capitals00 (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No there is not, please don't cite WP:CONSENSUS. I would suggest that you refrain from performing a unilateral edit war until the questions above are resolved. There is no link between the topic of the article and the content being added. Mar4d (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mar4d there is consensus, D4ina4, Kautilya3, Jim1138, and Tyler Duren (partially) are in agreement to include the content. You lost the argument and the WP:POINT that you had made above, thus you can't alone surpass multiple editors. Capitals00 (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

First, I see no indication that all the editors named above individually approved the said content. So please don't speak for them all and violate the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS, to unilaterally edit war your preferred version in. That is not consensus, and neither have you satisfactorily answered the questions put above per WP:BURDEN. Please also take note of WP:ARBIPA regarding these articles. Mar4d (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You claimed that you will allow including the content only if sexual abuse by Pakistani military took place in Pakistan cities, and D4 proved that they did. I don't think we need more explanation on this. Capitals00 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not make such a claim. I said it must be demonstrated reliably that those events occurred in the Kashmir conflict. What you are doing is adding events from the 1947 Indo-Pakistani War. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS and the point about this not being a general article on rape. Mar4d (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposals

Apparently, I think, there are only two ways to resolve this issue:

• (a) Going with the title chosen by the editor, and adding the occurences of rape during Tribesmen atrocities in October 1947, 1947 Jammu massacres, Mirpur Massacre of 1947 etc in a new "History" section at the top of the article.
• (b) Changing the article's title to 'Rape in Jammu and Kashmir' 'Rape in Kashmiri insurgency'.

I support (b). And the reason for my position is (a) is apparently creating a lot of complexity and confusion. With all this mess, the objective of the article is becoming vague and diluted. And it is distracting from the work of improving this article, which was earlier happening in the first section of this talk page. — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should stick to the topic of rape discussed the way it is discussed in scholarly sources i.e. taking the point of conflict from 1989 onwards. For historical rapes a new page called Rape in Jammu and Kashmir should be created but this page should be left as it is as it is specifically discussing the insurgency. Problematics (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Support A. Otherwise, the article would end up getting redirected to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, just like Rape in Jammu and Kashmir was. Capitals00 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe it would. As I said here, the circumstances involved in that article and this are totally different. — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternatively, keeping the article's lead and background in mind, this page should be renamed to Rape in Kashmir Insurgency. But I prefer to use Conflict instead of insurgency because I believe that scholars use the former word in respect to the insurgency when discussing the topic of conflict rape in Kashmir. Problematics (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Problematics: I'm afraid, you're bringing no scholarly sources when you again and again say, "scholars use" something! — Tyler Durden (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh I can find plenty but there's enough which are mentioned in the article's references and bibliography itself. If you open the sources used, you will find that each discussion on rape in Kashmir focuses on rape during the insurgency. You can check each and every reference used in the article and see if historical rapes are discussed alongside insurgency rape. The former are discussed completely separately (if at all). Can you find several scholarly sources which discusses them in the same context? Especially from amongst the sources used in this article. Problematics (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think suggestion (b) of Tyler Durden will also be fine. Problematics (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You're missing the point of this discussion. I know scholars focus explicitly on rapes during the insurgency, i.e. after 1989, when they discuss about "Rape in Kashmir". But no scholar said rapes in history, i.e. since 1947, should not be covered when we use particularly the title "Rape in Kashmir conflict". So, the present title allows the inclusion of all the events of sexual abuse that occurred as part of the Kashmir conflict. While the article with the title "Rape in Jammu and Kashmir" can only focus and elaborate on the rapes that occurred in Indian administered Kashmir. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Tyler Durden: Just a question regarding the above. Would Proposal B turn it into a general article, like Rape in India? Or would its focus still very much be the conflict/insurgency? If any of it involves whitewashing the latter as some above were trying to do, then I cannot favour this proposal. Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Tyler Durden, that is why I now agree to your proposal B. Historic rapes can have another article created for them, but they should not disturb the coherency of this article. Problematics (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d I understand your concern, I too had that. But I was hopeful since Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir did not meet that misfortune. If we want to avoid any risks, then we will have to go with "Rape in Kashmir conflict, Indian administered Kashmir", which I have to admit is obviously a lengthy and not so subtle title! — Tyler Durden (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, however there are several scholarly sources, as cited in this article, that use "Rape in Kashmir" as a title, to deal exclusively with the conflict-related sexual abuse in Jammu and Kashmir. So I don't think that such problem would occur. — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What about the title "Rape in Kashmiri Insurgency"? Problematics (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Actually, that's a good idea. Since the lead of the Kashmiri insurgency article, with RS, clearly states:

The insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir or the Kashmiri Insurgency is a conflict between various Kashmiri separatists and nationalists sometimes known as "ultras" (extremists), and the Government of India.

— Tyler Durden (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• A', just like what it actually is, discounting the WP:CENSOR and WP:DONTLIKE. B lacks enough sense. You can find 100s of sexual violence reports about every state in any democratic nation, therefore whole article would be WP:UNDUE. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You can find 100s of sexual violence reports about every state in any democratic nation: not the ones widely committed by that nation's security forces and militants as a weapon of war, unless there is a conflict in that state. — Tyler Durden (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Time out

I think there is too much talking going on but not enough thinking. Please take a time out, go off and think about it for a couple of days, and contemplate what a reader looking at a page called Rape in Kashmir conflict expects to see. It seems that all the involved editors are focused on what they want to write about rather than what the topic is supposed to be.

If need be, we can do an RfC to find out what the general community thinks about it. But I think that, if all the ediors think about it with calmer heads, they will see the picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

What, according to you, would a reader looking at a page called Rape in Kashmir conflict expects to see? — Tyler Durden (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Rape issues in entire Kashmir, not just Pakistan and India but also China. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

China administered Kashmir? Then you would be documenting issues of sexual abuse in a region that is almost uninhabitable. — Tyler Durden (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2017

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so renaming to (almost) the original article title of Rape in the Kashmir conflict.

Well, this is a long and complicated discussion with lots of points of view put across, and lots of questions raised about the scope of the article. On the naming question, the first issue seems to be whether the article should cover only the recent events of the conflict, or the entire conflict going back to 1947. And I see *no consensus* on that question. Specifically, some editors mention that we don't have an article covering the whole history of the event, while others say that the whole thing will get too long if we allow pre-1988 incidents. Secondly, there is a suggestion to change "rape" to "sexual violence", but again there is *no consensus* on that question either. Many support retaining rape, and that is consistent with some articles regarding other conflicts. Re merging, there is also *no consensus*; some support it, but several do not, and the argument that we have well-established rape articles for other conflicts is relevant here.

So, given that the whole conversation has resulted in no consensus, what is the default article title that we should preserve? The original title was "Rape in Kashmir Conflict", on April 22, which was changed to "Rape in Kashmir conflict" on the same day, then survived for three days until the move war blew up on the 25th, and this request was started on the 26th. Therefore the "stable" title should be "Rape in Kashmir conflict", in a no consensus scenario. I am going to take one small liberty though, by inserting "the" into it, to give "Rape in the Kashmir conflict", as that is better grammar than "Rape in Kashmir conflict". If there's anything more to be said on the issue, feel free to continue discussion, but I suggest a new RM should only be started if there's a change in positions and a clear consensus to move elsewhere looks likely, otherwise we'll end up with another wall of text and no clear outcome. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Rape in Kashmir Insurgency → Rape in Kashmir conflict – Controversial page move war despite objections[28], kindly protect the page move as well. Capitals00 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Since this suggestion[29] it is apparent now that this article is a fork of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir,[30] because content was moved from that article and unnecessarily extended here in order to make the article look long, I am supporting merging and redirecting to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we have found another good suggestion now. Which is to Support move to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict, in order to cover sexual abuse in the whole region and end this content dispute. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Enough amount of content[31] to include sexual violence in Pakistan administered Kashmir. (note, the title of page was Rape in Kashmir conflict then) Capitals00 (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Capitals00, Capitals00, Kautilya3, and D4iNa4: Judging by the feelings expressed in the next section above, we need discussion here. Please keep discussion concise and polite and avoid repeating. Please provide references for information used. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Owais Khursheed: Ditto. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support - By edit warring over the reliably sourced content,[32] and making page move wars[33][34], just to remove anything about Pakistan is called censorship and it is not allowed in wikipedia since its not censored. This article should be renamed to back to Rape in Kashmir conflict and include the atrocities in Pakistan administered Kashmir as well. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose — As carefully elaborated in this post. I repeat:

• As per WP:TITLE, the entire article's content in the current state including the lead, all of which is well sourced, fully and clearly appropriates the title Rape in Kashmir insurgency, more than anything else. And also, nothing says a Wikipedia article should not have this title.
• As to why it won't come as WP:CENSOR, if any interested editor(s) really want to have a broader article to cover the entire history of sexual abuse in Kashmir conflict, they can do so by creating another article with the title Rape in Kashmir conflict. This article doesn't stop anyone from doing so, in any way. This shall just remain as a subpage for that article, if created. Same like Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is to Human rights abuses in Kashmir.
• As to why my position is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I extensively explained it in that previous post of mine with references. Mainly, as I pointed out, the disruptive edits made by playing (WP:GAMING) with the words in the title Rape in Kashmir conflict clearly show the desperate aim to add anything related to 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' without sticking to the objective, ironically in the name of WP:NPOV. Regards --- Tyler Durden (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict, as per Kautilya's position below. We can have a 'History' section at the top of the article, where sexual violence in Kashmir conflict's history can be covered, and a 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' section where significant conflict-related sexual violence in that region post-1947, can be covered, if any. The objective and content of the present article won't get diluted anyway. Getting tired like everyone else in this thread, I'm trying to achieve an endpoint for this. And more importantly, I did not realise that 'Rape in Kashmir insurgency' is wrong English, and I greatly apologise for it. @Mar4d: @Owais Khursheed: @Problematics: You guys also might want to have a look at this. Now that the FORK dispute is gone, our responsibility is to determine a suitable title for the article. As already pointed out in this thread, we cannot have an article with a title that is wrong English. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• As regards some people separating the Pakistan matter, how often do the same people commit misdeeds in Azad Kashmir and also in Indian Kashmir?
  • Of this dispute, how much is about use of the word "rape", and how much about whether to call the situation an "insurgency" or a "conflict" or whatever? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the Democracy Index and Censorship by country, it becomes obvious that reports and research studies on Indian Kashmir are more prevalent. I don't see enough sources for either countries though that would refer it under "conflict" or "insurgency" though, but apparently they do fall under "conflict". Capitals00 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose-- I agree with Tyler Durden, Moreover the the pre insurgency and Pakistani cases will only lengthen the article to an extent that it becomes practically inaccessible and confusing to the readers. This article covers specific topic based on good sources and has practical access to the all aspects of the topic which is good for readers. Rape after Insurgency is so notable that it should surely have separate article on Wikipedia. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the extensive discussion above. Rape incidents within the Kashmir Valley have a connection to the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and the human rights situation there. These incidents are documented by multiple reliable sources. Likewise, users in favour of support have not demonstrated how the events of the 1947 war remotely relate to that situation. It is apples and oranges, and like comparing human rights in Jammu and Kashmir with human rights in the historical princely state. Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

*oppose The issue of the rape epidemic in indian controlled Kashmir has recieved massive international attention and deserves a separate article it is a realtively new problem and has garnered much attention as the sources clearly testify. Trying to muddy the water with a few fringe cases across the border serves no purpose this article should not be censored to appease certain people. 82.132.228.110 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Nangparbat sock.

• Oppose both names; Oppose the existence of any such page Both titles are nonsensical names. Literally, "Rape in the Kashmir insurgency" means "rape in the Kashmir insurgency movement," which I imagine was not the goal of the creator, and "rape in the Kashmir conflict" is meaningless as the term conflict is wider than the instances of military hostilities during it. It usually refers to a long-lasting strife. How can you have rape in a strife? This page should not have created in the first place. There are plenty pages on Kashmir for POV-pushing editors to display their toxic cogitations. Shame on the original creator whoever he or she is and shame on the page mover wannabe, whoever he or she is. Seriously, how many pages do people want? There is already: Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir. There is also the template {{Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir}} -- Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC) I have lost all interest in this debate. I know when I'm wasting my time, and that time has come and gone. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I believe that you are wholly correct on this matter. I believe that its rather a better choice to redirect and merge this article to existing Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, because Rape in Jammu and Kashmir was also redirectedafter consensus to it. Article has been unnecessarily made lengthy as well, but pulling out quotes from at least 7 sources when everything could be said in simple 1 paragraph. I would rather take this page move request back and obviously see if people are interested in redirect and merge instead. @Kautilya3, Tyler Durden, Jim1138, D4iNa4, Mar4d, and MBlaze Lightning: Capitals00 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: With all due respect, I disagree on the last point. Wikipedia isn't a paper encylopaedia; there is no practical limit on content creation. Especially when there is in-depth coverage of a topic provided in WP:RS and WP:V, which is true for this article. Unfortunately there is a group of editors that is intent on whitewashing content simply because of nationalistic fervour and WP:CENSORSHIP. In the process, these editors are damaging the encyclopedia. Mar4d (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes "nationalistic fervour and WP:CENSORSHIP" describes your edits well.[35] Also see WP:POTKETTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to sort out the difference between a WP:REVERT and WP:EDIT. That above is a revert. Undoing another edit (based on multiple editors' objections) is not WP:CENSORSHIP. But blanking material, synthesizing content, edit warring in the process, and consistently flouting a WP:DEADHORSE to justify it definitely counts as a display of censorship. Mar4d (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: That is not my point. Where is the evidence that edits about this topic were made on the already existing pages, and having outgrown those articles' size, are being spun off to a new article? The day before this page was created, the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir section on sexual violence stood in this pitiful newbie-quality state, not exactly bursting with excellent edits that required a spin-off; Human rights abuses in Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir are stubs. I'm not taking any sides here; just saying first fill up the available articles, then create spin-offs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

But would that not negate the whole concept of WP:BOLD? I don't see why the above should be seen as a reason to limit content expansion. This article has 80+ citations. So in that sense, it is a spin-off and outgrows its parent article/s. Mar4d (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

BOLD applies to making BOLD edits in an article, not to creating content forks in multiple articles with overlapping content. As the Content Forking site says: ""A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, ... A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." This is certainly not a summary style spin-off. It needs to be redirected to any of the three above-mentioned articles, and only when they are in a adequately sourced, summary-style, overlong and stable state within those articles, can a spin-off be made. This sort of thing puts an unfair burden on the people doing the job of maintenance in Wikipedia articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I should note that Mar4d provided a wrong estimate of "80+ citations", amount is just 31 or around same, with "Kazi, Seema" mentioned over 15 times in just citations and bibliography. Article is still remains a WP:FORK. Capitals00 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict. This is a hopelessly complicated and tendentious subject. So I will just limit myself to the question posed, viz., the move request. "Sexual violence" is more neutral and avoids the unfortunate connotations that "rape" has. That is what is used in world bodies, e.g., UN Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict. "Kashmir conflict" was the original title used, but the creator of the page has chosen to focus on the present insurgency only. Granted that the scale of violence in the present insurgency is likely to be larger than anything that preceded it, but sexual violence did occur in all stages of the conflict. The article can still weight the present conflict more, but it is better to broaden the scope to the whole conflict so that we don't limit our finger pointing to any one party, preserve our WP:NPOV mission. For people that think that this article should not exist, I point to the precedents in Category:Wartime sexual violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

^ Support the 'sexual violence' part. — Tyler Durden (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the last line in Kautilya's comment. Its a quite sound point. — Tyler Durden (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sexual violence or rape, it doesn't make much difference. Pages that use both in their titles exist on Wikipedia. What is offensive and what is not is not the issue here, and at least I did not argue that that was the stumbling block. Perhaps I did not explain this clearly. I said above, "rape in the Kashmir conflict" is meaningless as the term conflict is wider than the instances of military hostilities during it." What I should have said was, "rape in the Kashmir conflict" is meaningless as the term conflict, when applied to Kashmir, is wider than the instances of military hostilities during it. The word conflict has two meanings: a) it can refer to a military engagement, to an armed conflict, i.e. to military hostilities between two warring parties, these can be shorter-termed as in South Sudan, Ivory Coast, Bosnia, or longer termed, as in Columbia/FARC or b) it can refer to long-term strife, a state of mutual distrust or hostility, which may be punctuated with military hostilities. The UN Special Rep is talking about a). On their page they say, "These resolutions signal a change in the way the international community views and deals with conflict-related sexual violence. It is no longer seen as an inevitable by-product of war, but rather a crime that is preventable and punishable under international human rights law." (emphasis mine). In other words, they use "in conflict" and "conflict-related" synonymously. Kashmir, however, is an instance of b). It is the oldest dispute before the UN. This year it will mark its 70 anniversary. During these 70 years there have been short periods of military hostility interspersed with longer periods of distrust and enmity. What then would constitute "conflict-related sexual violence" in Kashmir, i.e. sexual violence in Kashmir that is the outcome of mutual distrust and enmity between India and Paksitan including outbreaks of war? Rape committed by soldiers or tribesmen in Baramula in 1947? Rape committed by X, Y, or Z in 1965? Rape committed within earshot of K2? Rape of an Israeli tourist in a houseboat on the Jhelum by locals? Rape committed by the respective armies of India and Pakistan against their own people? Any rape in Kashmir? The term becomes meaningless. Second, the more important point is that this page is a content fork. As the UN's page says, sexual violence is " a crime that is preventable and punishable under international human rights law." There are already three articles on Human rights abuses in Kashmir (a stub), Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir (a stub), Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, which last even has a section on Sexual Violence, which is nothing but a newbie's list. How then are you all creating a new article? Where is the evidence that you have already developed those articles to such a state of bursting-at-the-seams, summary-style, reliability that the sexual violence bit now needs to be spun-off as an independent article? There isn't. It is a case of the usual problem in South Asia related articles: Joe Schmo 1 comes along and starts one article (e.g. Ragging), Joe Schmo 2 starts another Ragging in India, Joe Schmo 3 Ragging in Sri Lanka, Joe Schmo 4 Ragging at the Indian Institutes of Technology, ...) The same here. Seriously guys. You are all adults, I'm assuming. What the heck is going on here? Please don't create a POV fork. Please develop those articles first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

PS I've added a "duplication" tag to the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: If that point is taken on face value (the existence of other articles lacking coverage), how is Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus any different? Btw, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) should be avoided as an argument. You should look at this article on its individual merit. Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No different, except that it was created two years ago, whereas this one was only 7 days ago. I was about to slap on the duplication tag on that too, but for an older article, the procedure is probably different.... But one of you, who have edited the article before could do that. Be careful though not to get into an edit war. There are discretionary sanctions. The main thing is that one article that is well written and tightly organized has much more of an impact factor than a dozen articles that focus on selective things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: This is my argument: As to the title issue you've pointed out, that "Rape in the Kashmir conflict" is a vague term, its true. It definitely won't mean any rape in Kashmir as in Rape in India, as any rape is not conflict-related rape. But rape happened in the conflict during partition violence[36][37][38], 1947 war, 1965 war etc also. All of this will only make the article complex and confusing to the readers. Also in my opinion, readers won't expect all of that stuff from an article of this type. But if still majority the editors in consensus decide to keep the title that way, assume we have the article with that name, and we systematically document all that stuff in a 'History' section. I even have no problem with that, but my concern is this. When the article's title was "Rape in Kashmir conflict", two editors started adding a part of this history stuff under a new section named "Rape in Pakistan administered Kashmir(PAK)", while much of it, almost all of it, occurred in today's Indian administered Kashmir(IAK), and when neither PAK or IAK existed. Also they have added content on Shia-Sunni conflict in PAK which has no relation to Kashmir conflict, unless WP:RS say so(which they did not produce), and a line that about Pakistani militants committing rape in IAK, all of these in the same "Rape in PAK section". They have done this desperately and nonsensically six goddamn times, by edit warring, despite my elaborate requests on this talk page reasonably explaining not to do so.[39][40][41][42][43][44] Check those edits if you want, that was blatant POV pushing. They have even cited the same section[45] below this REM, claiming that it should be included, as it is "sexual violence in Pakistan administered Kashmir."[46] If this is the case with just two POV pushers in the initial days, what would be the situation if tomorrow more of them start attacking this controversial article? How can we possibly deal with it then? It becomes more and more complex to maintain the article "Rape in Kashmir conflict". So, I have taken a position against it. Regarding the content on rape inside PAK, we all know that apparently there has been very little internal conflict and insurgency in PAK, that too when compared to the Kashmir valley in IAK. So the POV editors' idea to balance(I'd say 'dilute', given the record) the conflict-related violence in IAK with that in PAK, will only end up becoming an absurdity. It will fail. The 2005 BBC report of a rape case which says, it was the first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused, is a clear example for this (emphasis mine). The POV editors are trying to compare conflict-related violence in one region which is an extensive internal-conflict and insurgency zone for almost four decades, with another region, which is apparently not. All that aside, you haven't explained in any of your messages in this thread, why the article can/cannot have the title "Rape in Kashmir insurgency". I would like to know your opinion on that, as I support it. Kashmir insurgency is an ongoing internal conflict that has been taking place in the Kashmir valley since about 1990s. It finely fits your a) category that you mentioned in your earlier post in this thread. Also, given that we have plenty of sources which explicitly focus on rape in Kashmir insurgency, when they talk about "rape in Kashmir" (we have more than a dozen of scholarly sources in this article itself), presumably due to the predominant scale of violence due to this insurgency, more than anywhere else in whole of Kashmir.

Coming your second concern, its true that the creator of this article did not bother to improve or summarize the corresponding content in any of the broader articles. Its a mistake. I know that the 'sexual violence' section in Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir used to be too ugly before the creation of this article. I tried to clean it up a bit later,[47] but however did not put any serious efforts though. Human rights abuses in Kashmir, from top to bottom, is all in a messy and unorganised state. It needs a whole lot of time and effort to refine that article, let alone categorically summarizing the 'sexual violence' part in it. (Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, which is not in any way connected to this article in the current state, is an ultimate stub and content fork. It should've been long back merged into Human rights abuses in Kashmir.) I'm not the one who created this article. But keeping in mind that the broader articles should be correspondingly well summarized due to the 'spin off' of this content fork, the thing is that this article, though irresponsibly, has already been created by an editor. Now the primary question in this forum is, what to do with this article. As you must've gone through the article while reviewing it for quality scale, do you think all the significant points in the content of this article can be possibly documented by summarizing in any of the other articles, specifically in the 'sexual violence' section of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir? I clearly don't think so. The article has a well sourced and sizable content, cited to many notable sources. As some editor counted, there is content from, some above 30 reliable sources. More important is the significant amount of content that is there, which cannot be completely driven into other broader articles. It would be UNDUE for those articles. So merging/deleting this article at this stage would mean loss of considerable notable content along with a notable article, which is supported by several notable sources. It is the last thing we would wanna do in Wikipedia. So in this context, as Mar4d has pointed above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument for saying this article should be non-existent. That's all I can tell you. Feel free to differ with me wherever you wish to do so. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"occurred in today's Indian administered Kashmir", weren't you shown the sources above, that talks about the rapes carried out by pakistani military in the territories that are administered by them today?[48] Let me quote it for you, "invaders attacked was Muzaffarabad town, where they looted, raped and killed many". Finally you need to avoid WP:BLUD and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, because your wall of texts are not helping, but only making this environment worse. You are asking everyone to repeat same argument when they have already answered the question, instead you need to move forward. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot be used as scapegoat for creating forks. This entire article is itself WP:UNDUE, as it pulls out quotes from few sources just to make this article look bigger. @Sitush: for his opinion too. Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: As I have already indicated, both names are ambiguous, even meaningless. In the English language, "Rape in the Kashmir insurgency" means "rape in the Kashmir insurgency movement," not "Rape by security forces in insurgency beset Kashmir." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was meaning the same: "rape in the Kashmir insurgency movement." And its meaningful. Also, obviously not "Rape by security forces in insurgency beset Kashmir." Else I wouldn't have added this section in the article. [49] Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: No, no, that is not what I meant. Let me rephrase: In the English language, "rape in the Kashmir insurgency" refers to insurgent on insurgent rape = rape perpetrated by insurgents on their own members. (This does happen in movements, or organizations, when some domineering or charismatic members force themselves on others. The Wikileaks Julian Assange would be an example.) The term "rape in the Kashmir insurgency" dpes not include rape by Indian security forces on anyone, nor would it include rape by militants on others. The creators of this page made a booboo in naming it. That's what happens when people hurriedly create a POV fork. They don't even take the time to discus the naming with others first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. "Rape in Kashmir insurgency" is wrong English. That is one of the reasons I supported the move.
• Whether this article should exist separately or merged into Human rights abuses in Kashmir is a harder question. I haven't yet fully considered it. It depends on a whole lot of factors such as the scale of the sexual violence, how the RS are treating it, its prominence (or lack of it) in the counter-insurgency operations etc. It is a hopelessly tendentious issue. But on the face of it, there is no reason why this subject should not be covered in the larlger article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge and redirect to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir Fowler*fowler has made the best possible argument here. None of the other similar articles ever had a article like these 3 that have potential of broader scope. I can support move to 'Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict, but then it should include the material about Pakistan that couple of users here are opposing. Thus my biggest vote goes to merge and redirect. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Support renaming to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict as per discussion here in order to reach to a compromise. Should include incidents of both nations since scholarly sources can be found for both countries. I see @Capitals00: has changed the vote, while Fowler has withdrawn, I would ping @MBlaze Lightning: so that he can be convinced to change his vote per the compromise. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose- The subject of rape/sexual violence in Kashmir Valley is so frequently discussed in the scholarly sources that it meets the criteria of WP:Notability. And this discussion revolves around sexual violence in the insurgency since 1990. Especially in the sources used for this article. The issue of rape in 1947-1948 is not discussed in scholarly texts about sexual violence in the Kashmir insurgency. They are discussed separately. Still if some people want to discuss rapes that happened in 1947, by tribals in Baramulla/Muzaffarabad districts or by Dogras in Jammu, they are free to create another page chronicling the entire history of conflict related sexual abuses in the region since 1947. But they should not disturb the flow of this article which begins with Since the onset of the insurgency... and discusses issues and aspects relating to such violence in the insurgency.

At the same time changing the word from 'Rape' to 'Sexual Violence' is fine. What is not fine is disturbing this article's text's flow and hence I strongly oppose a name change from insurgency to conflict. Problematics (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Dear Problematics (talk · contribs) (@Problematics:) Yours is an WP:SPA created a few days ago for the sole purpose of creating this POV-fork. Why should your opinion count? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Dear Fowler&fowler, because I have put in my hard work and effort to improve this article. And what you have linked to is an essay and not a policy. Problematics (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Problematics: I am procedurally noting this here, per WP:MEAT, which says, "Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by an influx of single-purpose editors: "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, ... " Whether your account constitutes such an account I will leave an uninvolved admin to determine. As you are no doubt aware, this is a contentious page, and generally a contentious topic. ArbCom has discretionary sanctions in place. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• New proposal An alternative title can be Rape during Kashmir Conflict (1988-present). This title would match the present content about conflict related sexual violence in the insurgency area of Indian administrated Kashmir. Post 1988 is a whole new phase of sexual violence as war weapon in Kashmir and is a stand alone topic which deserves solitary coverage. Its also how the scholars and common sources deal with this subject, they talk about this in the context of the conflict in Indian Kashmir since 1988 onwards. If we add history then we will eventually get to a point where even 16th century Mughal rapes in Kashmir will be included. Come on people! Problematics (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming or merging- As per precedent Rape during the occupation of Japan, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Rape during the Rwandan Genocide. Let's call a spade, a spade. Rape in Kashmir has been categorized as a War Crime not human right abuse. Thus, it needs to be documented in a separate article.

• Rape in Kashmir - The Forgotten War Crime by Rita Pal, The Huffington Post.
• "Human Rights Watch first documented sexual violence in conflict in 1993 when we published a report about how Indian security forces in Kashmir used rape to brutalise women...Since that first report,...rape in conflict is prosecuted as a war crime and a crime against humanity." - It’s Not Just About Sexual Violence by Liesl Gerntholtz, The Huffington Post mfarazbaig --mfarazbaig 20:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge and redirect to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir, largely per Fowler&fowler. We don't need more POV content forks. The article, as it is now is horribly WP:POV in tone and contains lots of propaganda and allegations presented as facts, and makes no mention of the subsequent investigations that revealed almost all reports were proved either false, or unsubstantiated.[50],[51], [52], [53]. And there was already a merge consensus established at Talk:Rape_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Proposed_merge_with_Rape_in_India.—MBlaze Lightning ^T 06:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

[54][55] Bro, before posting them here, did you even properly read what those sources said and the headings they used, on your claims: the subsequent investigations that revealed almost all reports were proved either false, or unsubstantiated? Just asking. Coz not in a mood to argue anymore. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I did read them. The article talks about Kunan Poshpora but does not mention the findings of Press Council of India, which found the charges against the Indian forces to be "baseless".[56].

[57] says:

It says that the army had received 1,532 allegations of human rights violations (995 from Jammu and Kashmir, 485 from North-Eastern states, and 52 complaints from other states) out of which 1,508 were investigated, and 24 investigations remained pending as of 2011. Out of a total of 995 complaints of human rights violations against the army in Jammu and Kashmir, 986 have been investigated by the army to date, while 9 investigations currently remain pending, it says. The army says it found that 961 of these allegations were ‘false, baseless’ through internal enquiries. In the 25 cases found to be ‘true,’ it says 129 army personnel were punished,

This article demonstrates heavy bias, and not facts and evidence. Per WP:NPOV, articles must present significant POVs of all sides, which this article does not. -- —MBlaze Lightning ^T 04:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Come on bro. Please observe fully what those sources are saying.

• From your source 1: (under the section and subsections with explicit headings: Rape as weapon of war and tool of political oppression —> India: Rape in Kashmir —> Rape by Security Forces: The pattern of impunity p129-) [58]

If the authorities had conducted a proper investigation, including a medical examination, [...]then it would be possible to determine the truth about what happened in Kunan Poshpora.[...] The Press Council does not constitute a judicial investigative body, and the severe shortcomings of its visit have been noted above. (emphasis mine) [...] A senior government official familiar with the incident revealed that although the number of women alleged to have been raped may have been inflated, they believed it was likely that several of the women were raped by the soldiers. Even when investigations are ordered, they rarely result in prosecutions...

• From your source 2: [59]

The international human rights’ body (Amnesty International) has prepared a detailed second report, titled “Denied”-Failures in Accountability in Jammu and Kashmir, in 2015.[...] “This impunity is greatly accorded to the security forces by laws like Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA)[...] The family members, it reads, are not required to be informed about the status of the sanction. “They often assume that the sanction is denied. [...] Most of the times, the families are not even aware of the procedures to apply for permission to prosecute,” the report says[...] “Similarly, with respect to investigations, an inquiry that is conducted by the same authority accused of the crime raises serious questions about the independence and impartiality of those proceedings,” it says, adding that the international law requires that crimes be investigated by an independent authority that is not involved in the alleged violations.

What about all this? I agree that the security forces' and government's versions are also to be certainly added to the article in appropriate places per WP:NPOV as I did here, [60] but the editors of this article hardly had a week before all this mess happened and some of my brothers here started to take things personal, unfortunately. I know its hard to disentangle our nationalistic feelings from a subject like this, but quoting extracts of security forces' and government's versions in their own defence, citing sources that were specifically written to criticize those very versions, for calling the content from reliable sources in this article as "propaganda" and "heavy bias", appeared quite strange to me. So I simply commented, never mind, mate. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Kashmir conflict is too general. I find this more specific, but that's my two cents.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge This article documents a specific type of human rights violation that is discussed over time in many reliable sources. I added a few new references to the article myself and I know there are more--that's on top of all the excellent references already in the article! This is a topic that passes GNG, no matter how you feel about and is not a FORK. This is a topic that is being tracked by the Women Under Siege Project and other organizations. Litigation based on alleged mass rapes in 1991 have been filed in 2013: it's an ongoing issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• You are aware that as a matter of English usage, "Rape in the Kashmir insurgency," means "rape within the Kashmir insurgency movement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming is fine. I oppose a merge, Fowler. This discussion is a little sticky in that there seem to be both issues on the table. I'm not opposed to a name change. I'm opposed to the idea that this is a FORK and should be merged. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you open to the title Sexual violence in Kashmir? In other words, to the idea of starting with a broader ranging title and then spinning off to the more narrow focus, shoud the need arise? You are aware too, though I imagine it doesn't make much difference per WP guidelines, that this page was created some ten days ago, 25 years after reports of some of the incidents had appeared in the press and many years after articles on all those incidents had appeared in WP. The secondary references have been around for over a dozen years. And I imagine that you are also aware that Kashmir appears nowhere in the UN Secretary General's 2016 report on sexual violence in conflict-affected regions that I refer to below, though 19 geographical areas around the word do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose retitling to make titled about anything but sexual violence; I do not take a position on the nuances between "conflict" and "insurgency" other than to note this entire topic is subject to WP:DS. But it is not a WP:CFORK to break out sexual violence above and beyond human rights abuses, per the comments in the next section about women's issues. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - There are many reliable sources on the sexual dimension to this conflict, but we should include both sides of the conflict on the same page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have no idea. This is not a Requested Move, this is a war. I don't have half a day to wade through all this. RM nominator's statement consisted of "Controversial page move war despite objections[16], kindly protect the page move as well". Well how does that help me figure out what the freaken name of the article should be. Or maybe there shouldn't be an article. Or maybe it should be merged. Who knows? Fight among yourself, but leave me out of it. I resent being dragged into this morass by the RM posting. Herostratus (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is about women

This article is about women, their welfare and violence against them. It is quite unseemly for a bunch of men to sit around a table and discuss whether "rape" should be a subject or not. But that is the situation we are in. I am going to request input from WP:WikiProject Women. But here are my thoughts to start with.

• The article starts by saying rape is being used as a "weapon of war".
• It documents that 11.6% of Kashmiri women have reported being abused.
• Professor William Baker said that it was not indiscipline but a means of cultural subjugation.
• Scholar Dara Kay lists Kashmir among the worst affected of all conflicts including Bosnia and Rwanda.

If people have read all these things, and still insist that this is not a subject and should not have an article of its own, I have to say shame on you guys. This is not an issue of India or Pakistan or Kashmir, but it is about whether we treat women's welfare as a subject. As Wikipedia, we do. Supported by enough reliable sources that are treating it as a subject, this article will pass any AfD test. I see no reason to merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! My overwhelming and heartfelt respect & support for the above statement. Thank you Kautilya for putting this so straight and subtle. If there is an issue of grammar of English language in the title, we've to work on how to fix it. If there's a problem of not summarising the corresponding content of this article in other broader articles, we should make sure that it should be addressed. But when people say this subject shouldn't have an article on its own, I wonder if they have even read the article throughout, with WP:VERIFYing its content. In case they did and are still asking & endorsing to merge/delete this article, it seriously makes me wonder what kind of world these people, whoever they are, are living in. I have been relentlessly trying to reason with them only because of the faith I still have in the Wikipedia community. Best regards to you Kautilya3, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY is the correct way to describe your entire comment and none of it rules out that the article still remains a duplicate and fork that should be merged and redirect on already existing articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Tyler Durden: Since you had brought up the United Nations Office of Sexual Violence in Conflict and suggested that its name and scope were the models for Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict, which you are proposing, let us now examine your points, in light of the UN Office's own published statements:

• "This article is about women":

• (Rejoinder) The UN Secretary General's 2016 report on Sexual Violence in Conflict defines the scope of the term, "The term “conflict-related sexual violence” refers to rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, enforced sterilization, forced marriage and any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity perpetrated against women, men, girls or boys that is directly or indirectly linked (temporally, geographically or causally) to a conflict." The UN had a special session earlier devoted to sexual violence against men and boys in Afghanistan, which is just a stone's throw from Kashmir.

• "rape is being used as a weapon of war"

• (rejoinder) The UN's Office says, here, "Sexual violence) is no longer seen as an inevitable by-product of war, but rather a crime that is preventable and punishable under international human rights law." Note I have suggested all along that this article—created overnight, and with such alacrity and dispatch, that the implications of the article's name were not considered—is a content/POV fork of three existing articles: Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir, and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, none of which are brimming with facts of such reliability as to require spin-offs. In fact, two of the three are stubs, as is the "sexual violence" section of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir.

• "11.6% of Kashmiri women have reported being abused," and "Kashmir (is) among the worst affected of all conflicts including Bosnia and Rwanda."

• (rejoinder) As the 2011 Indian census, pegged the female population of Kashmir to be 6 million, and since already five years have elapsed, in your telling 600,000 women appear to have been sexually and violently abused in Kashmir. That number is a large number, surely large enough for the UN to notice, for the UN routinely highlights sexual violence involving smaller numbers, such as 250 women in Nigeria (Boko Haram). In fact, the UN Secretary General's 2016 report on Sexual Violence in Conflict does name many country names. Let us examine what they are: In the section "Sexual violence in conflict-affected settings" (page 9), they are: Afghanistan (page 9), Central African Republic (page 10), Columbia (page 11), Democratic Republic of Congo (13), Iraq (14), Libya (15), Mali (16), Myanmar (18), Somalia (18), South Sudan (19), Sudan Darfur (21), Syrian Arab Republic (23), Yemen (24). In the section "Sexual violence crimes in post-conflict settings," they list: Bosnia and Herzgovina (page 24), Cote d'Ivoire (page 25), Nepal (26), Sri Lanka (26). In "Other situation of concern," they list: Burundi (page 27) and Nigeria (27).

• It appears that Kashmir is mentioned nowhere in the report. Again: Kashmir is mentioned nowhere in the report. Are you going to now Google some other UN body to pin your POV fork on? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to now Google some other UN body to pin your POV fork on? No, I am not. Given the UN's abysmal incompetence in dealing with the Kashmir dispute, it matters little to me what the UN says or doesn't say. You are welcome to add the information that the UN reports are silent on Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean, the UN Secretary General's 2016 Report on Sexual Violence in Conflict—of whose existence I was not aware, but which you informed us was the model of enlightened NPOV nomenclature for your proposed page move—highlights 19 countries, or geographical regions, for occurrence of sexual violence, but fails to mention Kashmir anywhere within its 34 pages, and, having been so informed, (you) are dissociating yourself with the UN's failure in solving the conflict that appeared at its newly chiseled doorstep 70 years ago, and by implication with its predilection for noticing sexual violence everywhere but one green valley in the north of South Asia. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am merely saying that your effort to sweep away all the reliable sources that have been cited using the argument that a particular UN report is silent about it is pretty pompous. The UN has no credibiity with Kashmir. India doesn't let UN anywhere near Kashmir. Even the UNMOGIP observers are confined to their offices in Srinagar. I don't expect the UN to be harbinger of truth on Kashmir matters. It is the least reliable of all possible sources. What it says or doesn't say makes no difference whatsoever. As I said, you are welcome to add the information that the UN report is silent on it, for whatever it is worth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And the 19 highlighted countries, all pillars of democracy and openness, have been offering especial protection to the UN representatives wherever they chose to go within their borders? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To add to Kautilya, even that UNMOGIP was decided to be inoperative in Kashmir, ironically within weeks after 2016 Kashmir unrest started, after India pressurised to do so.[61] Note that:[62]

Stephane Dujarric (UN Secretary General's spokesperson) was also asked why the Secretary General does not initiate efforts to settle the Kashmir conflict, even as the world body is trying to resolve conflicts in Cyprus and the Middle East. “I will leave it to you and others to…to analyse the reasoning. I think the questions on the situation in Kashmir have come up with us today and previously. Our answers to those questions remain the same,” Dujarric said, without elaborating.

---Tyler Durden (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Getting rather tired of the empty arguments that this article is a fork, simply because these following articles (Human rights abuses in Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir) exist. Why are those pages some sort of benchmarks? What happened to WP:GNG and treating the information herein on its own merit? And btw, categorising rape as a "human rights" issue is fraught with flaws as someone noted. Wikipedia works on WP:VOLUNTEER, if those articles are found to be lacking info, feel free to update them with a summary of this article. If you're still not satisfied, then press the nuclear button and put up the human rights pages up for WP:AfD. I know some here would not hesitate from that even. Let's see how that ends up. Rather than diverting, it would help if the focus remains on the subject, and determining a suitable title (which was the purpose of this thread anyway). Mar4d (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You obviously can't AfD those articles since you are yourself their leading contributor since 2012. As for sexual violence, the reference to gang rape by the Indian army was added to the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir page in this edit of 04:12 on 11 September 2012, which was three edits, and four hours later, accepted by you in this edit of 8:13 on 11 September 2012, and thereafter never amended, even though you are the leading contributor to the page with 72 edits. I agree with you, we are all getting tired, but it is precisely because POV-pushers (and you most certainly are not among them, as I can vouch from our long acquaintance on Wikipedia), tiring of one page, which has stabilized somewhat, and therefore not receiving the attention it formerly did, are looking for new POV-forks in order to remain in the limelight. That is the main, and really only, problem in this page. As you well know, I am hardly an Indian protagonist in the Kashmir dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I have taken the page off my watchlist. I came here because I felt some general responsibility, having overseen some Kashmir-related articles for ten years. But I see that I'm wasting my time. Please do not ping me here. If you do, I will not respond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope of the article

• Reply: Hi again Tyler. Thanks for the ping. My issue is I just do not see the connect with 1947 events with the post late 80s conflict in Kashmir Valley (there is more than 4 decades of difference!). Women abducted/raped in Jammu and Kashmir back then came under the same repatriation scheme as women abducted elsewhere in India and Pakistan.

  Most recoveries were made from East and West Punjab followed by Jammu, Kashmir and Patiala.

Surely a more suitable place for those events would be in this underdeveloped and much development needing article Violence against women during the partition of India and not an article whose subject matter is trying to follow the pattern in scholarly sources about said matter. Example would be the encyclopediac source used to write this article

For reasons of clarity and consistency this article uses Kashmir to refer to the Valley of Kashmir, also the location of the present conflict. The term Jammu and Kashmir refers to the state as a whole~Gender and Militarization in Kashmir, Seema Kazi, Oxford University Press

Common sources also when talking about sexual violence in Kashmir only think about the current conflict since 1989/1990. For example in the Women Under Siege Project

Soon after the Indian government’s crackdown against Kashmiri insurgents, which started in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel began to surface.

And

since the inception of armed insurgency in Kashmir, the military approach towards the insurgency has resulted in numerous rapes of innocent women.

So shouldn't we follow that pattern? I still think including a history section will just muddle all the content up. Surely the violence in the current internal conflict in the insurgency plagued region needs separate devoted coverage on an encyclopedia? (Others can still get their own) Problematics (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Brother, we all have had enough of this name-game. I personally support your argument. You can see here that I fought for it, wasting a lot of my time and also others' time. But it doesn't matter what I or you support. We do not have a title we can go with, for our version, though I know it deserves a separate article. Our hurried title of Rape in Kashmir insurgency ended up being wrong English, we should feel embarrassed about it. No appropriate title supports the content on "current internal conflict in the insurgency plagued region", alone. So our best shot is "Sexual violence in Kashmir conflict". No matter how many scholars use it to focus on violence in present insurgency in the valley, there is no way in Wikipedia by which we can restrict anyone to add content from throughout the timeline of Kashmir conflict. We are nobody to stop even if one editor wants to do that, as per the title. And there is no loss in it, none of the present content in the article gets disrupted. [63] - This will be the structure of the article. This is not only a middle-ground that I'm proposing, this is the only possible way out of this useless mess. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: I understand your frustration bro. Endless argumentation. Its tiring us all out. For this issue I have just thought up another the title. Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1990-present). Wikipedia has similar titles on other articles for each of a subject's time period. See. Those who insist on creating one for the 1947-1949 phase can create a page called Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1947-1949). The problem with adding 'here and there' content is that it never stops. If we add an isolated 'first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused' then that would open the door to add cases in Pakistan administered Kashmir such as the alleged rape by Indian troops of girls in a village in Pakistan administered Kashmir back in 2000. Someone could also add an alleged 1984 Sunni-Shia rape case in Srinagar. It won't stop and before we know it the article will become general. But the article is meant to be about one specific conflict only. 1990 Indian administered Kashmir Valley onwards. And thats what the sources this article uses discuss. Problematics (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong if it opens doors to add all cases related to the whole Kashmir conflict? Every editor has the right to add any of such stuff. I see no problem, the present content, in its separate section, doesn't get disrupted. Sunni-Shia rape cases are not Kashmir conflict-related violence, by the way. Not until any WP:RS indicates so. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well it derails from the article's main topic and paves the path for generality rather than specificity to the conflict. If someone wants too add a collection of isolated cases not specifically part of the 1990s onwards conflict inside the insurgency zone, they should do so on other related pages (of which there are plenty and if not they can make new ones). Not this one if we want to avoid disruptions and going off on tangents. Problematics (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm always open to it. And in that case, you have to gain consensus for the title Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1989-present). Try doing that now. I'll sit back and have my popcorn. Also mind you, this hypothetical article will also have a 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' section with the isolated *2005* BBC case, initially. You can stop nobody from adding it, even with that title. Please keep this in mind before your efforts go in vain. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: if such page move is supported, how much removed(of this diff) content inclusion you will support? I still believe that a separate Pakistan section was enough. Here's my proposal User:Capitals00/Sexual_violence_in_the_Kashmir_conflict (you can edit it too to show your version) Capitals00 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 [64] — Here you go, mate. And it is not my version. It is the appropriate version as per the title. See my edit summaries for reasons. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know you made a version on which I can agree too. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked all the points made above in detail. But my feeling is that if we use Kashmir conflict as the scope, we would have basically two subsections, one on the 1947 conflict and one on the current insurgency. Maybe another one on Pakistan-administered Kashmir but I am not confident that there is enough content there on conflict-related sexual violence. We have to do this basically to avoid WP:POV, the allegation that we are unduly highlighting one party over the others. -

The idea that the reliable sources don't do it this way is not enough of an argument. The sources (either scholarly sources or journalists) are focused on whatever interests them or whatever is of current importance. They don't have an obligation to be encyclopaedic. As I said above, the article is about women, not about any particular conflict or any particular party. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: [65] — Is this structure fine, in your opinion? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "History" should be the "History of the conflict". It needs to describe very briefly what happened in 1947, then mention the wars of 1965 and 1971, and then describe the present insurgency. Recall that the present insurgency was inaugurated with the abduction of Rubaiya Syed, which fits in with the theme of this article. Then the targeted killings of Hindus and pro-India Muslims, the resignation of the civilian government and the calling out of the army. Then the number of casualties over the years.

Then I would want to have a section on the 1947 conflict with known incidents of sexual violence from all sides. The efforts to rescue women should also be covered. Some "stories" such as these [66], [67] (no idea whether they are true or not).

Then the main section on the present conflict.

I think the Pakistan-administered Kashmir section is no good and should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Then please tell to Capitals00 that 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' section would be absurd. I still don't understand why he wants it so badly. There is no present internal conflict in Pakistan administered Kashmir(PAK) like in Indian administered Kashmir(IAK). Keeping that section with one, that too conflict-unrelated, 2005 incident would be indicating that there is very little violence in PAK despite the conflict, unlike in IAK. It is not only WP:UNDUE, but also naive! I'm saying this here, on the same talk page, for the hundredth time! — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't the 'history' section be given a new page (Rape in Kashmir Conflict 1947-1949)? That topic can get its own in-depth coverage better there. Oh and I can't find any information on sexual violence in Kashmir in the next two Indo-Pak wars. Unsurprising because the conflict began in 1988.

As I proposed earlier a suitable title for this article would be Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1988-present). Both the scholarly sources and the lead of this article are clear that its the present conflict which is being covered. This page is modeled after its precedents in Category:Wartime sexual violence such as Rape during the occupation of Japan, Rape during the liberation of France and Rape during the occupation of Germany. They all focus on specific times & areas. Adding a history section (with more than 4 decades of gap too!!) here would distract focus from the article's main purpose and discussion. Problematics (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in the previous section, this article is about women and how their well-being is affected by conflict. It is not about conflicts per se. If you want to talk about conflicts, please use the corresponding conflict articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We need to pay attention to WP:DUE. We can't just add anything about women, it has to be a part of violence against women in this particular conflict the article is set in. What you want to add is not within this article's scope, nor are they in the sources used for this article. Your proposed content is better suited for Violence against women during the partition of India or in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. If added here it takes attention away from violence against women in the present conflict. Which is different to the historic content from 4 decades prior to its beginning! We wouldn't add content from here to Violence against women during the partition of India or in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and we should not do the reverse either, it would be WP:UNDUE. Problematics (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You are rehashing your !vote again. There is no need to do so, because I have read it the first time you wrote it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1988-present) is also a good option for title of the article as it is specific cause the all the rapes after 1988 were done in Indian administered Kashmir. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think during is a better word than 'in'. Though there is a page called in Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency during is the word in most other pages' titles in the Wartime sexual violence category. Problematics (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't anyone think, choosing the title Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1988-present) is too embarrassing and meaningless? Wars and conflicts have stages, and hence the timelines. But why the acts of violence themselves in a conflict have to be separated in timelines, beforehand? We do not have an article with the title Kashmir conflict (1988-present), and we want to name an article as Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1988-present)! Doesn't this create ambiguity to the readers? And more importantly, this may probably lead to many objections and huge opposition to the existence of the article by other Wikipedians in future, who can easily point towards the problematic title. Please keep this in mind. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Splitting a subject by time periods is done when the subject is too big to fit into a single article. That is not the case here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Let us please think sensibly, reach a reasonable compromise, and end this asap, so that we all can focus on writing the article. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The scope of the article should be restricted to sexual violence against women in indian administered Kashmir since 1988 because thats how all the scholarly and common sources treat the subject.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

According to many scholarly sources, they have also mentioned sexual violence in Pakistan's Kashmir in this conflict and since 1947, there's no reason to censor any of that. I found anothersource (says Human Rights Watch reported sexual violence by Pakistani troops in 2006) just now. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Your source cites two references: This paper by Bastick, Grimm & Kunz (p. 97) and this 2006 HRW report. The Bastick paper contains a line about "sexual violence" by Pakistani security forces against "Kashmiri detainees", and cites the same HRW report (p. 53). When I opened p. 53 from HRW, the passage that followed it quoted an incident about a male detainee (under interrogation) being stripped naked and having chillies shoved in his rectum. Ordinarily, this would qualify as torture or human rights abuse. Though calling it rape (and wording it as such) would be factually misleading, and a stretch even for this article. So just to those for inclusion of Azad Kashmir, please be thorough with your sources. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Do you have an opinion on what the title should be now, given that the Rape in Kashmir insurgency happened to be wrong English? As you can see, after all the endless fights here, Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict and Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1988-present) are on the table at present. Which one do u support among these? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: I think Rape during the Kashmir conflict could be an appropriate and neutral title. It would follow the precedent of other similar articles. Although as far as the primary scope of this article is concerned, my position hasn't changed. I don't establish any connection between the post-insurgency rapes and the 47 war. The former are a human rights issue related to the ongoing conflict, and part of a pattern of HRVs. When sections like Mughal era, 1947 war era or Azad Kashmir rapes will start being added, the article's context will get lost somewhere in the galaxy. Anyone who wants to discuss rape incidents in Pakistani Kashmir can easily go edit the AJK HRV article. Mar4d (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict as more inclusive of the various types of sexual violence used against men, women and children in conflict areas. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title and scope

TylerDurden you have made a major edit on Rape in Kashmir Conflict although the scope of article is still disputed. Please don't make such a disputed change without consensus. And your justification for adding history is the title. But Mar4d supported a [similar title] but still advocated a 1988-onwards scope. So the title does still not warrant inclusion of pre-1988 content. Problematics (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan —MBlaze Lightning ^T 08:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Problematics: You must be out of your mind! Please just read the decided title. 'Rape in Kashmir conflict'. What scope you think, you can still dispute to stop the addition of history of the very conflict? Take this to the talk page anyway. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:: @Tyler Durden: Yes I have read it. What the admin decided was the title, not the scope. As user @Mar4d: implied in his talkpage comment when he supported the current title, the title still does not warrant an extended scope. Please self-revert, because there is no consensus on the scope. Problematics (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

How can I self-revert when another editor has reverted you? Please see the edit history properly. And the title does warrant the scope, this is not an issue of consensus anymore. You cannot have an article with title Kashmir conflict and stop people from including the conflict's history by asking to gain consensus. The same is the case here. Even if I omit the history section now, tomorrow if just one editor decides to add it back, he/she has the right to do so, irrespective of what the rest of all editors think/want. There is nothing that can reasonably prevent him/her from adding it. Mar4d might have stated his opinion, but that does not change things. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:::: Oh sorry, just noticed that. My issue as you can see is that the article has now been structurally ruined. There is no flow anymore. The history of the conflict section looks very misplaced and deals with events of forty years previous to the main discussion. No editor has the right to add something not in the article's scope. The title does not warrant the content because as I said the scholarly sources and common sources when talking about rape in Kashmir conflict discuss the issue from 1988 onwards. So the historical content is not suitable even with this new title. Contentious content cannot be added without consensus. I hope you understand my point. Problematics (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

I share your concerns. But there's nothing we can do about it now. I'm quoting Kautilya3's comments from an above thread: The idea that the reliable sources don't do it this way is not enough of an argument. The sources (either scholarly sources or journalists) are focused on whatever interests them or whatever is of current importance. They don't have an obligation to be encyclopaedic. As Wikipedia, we are bound to be encyclopaedic. An encyclopaedic article on Rape in Kashmir conflict is bound to document the content on rape in the history of the Kashmir conflict also, because that timeline is unarguably a part of Kashmir conflict. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:::::: The definition of 'conflict' in our sources is the one which traces its origin to 1988, not 1947. Problematics (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

@Problematics: see WP:CIR and WP:IDHT, you are getting disruptive and not listening what others are telling. Capitals00 (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not the Kashmir conflict started in 1947 is not something that needs to be discussed, in my humble opinion. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi all - just to be clear, I closed the above discussion as "no consensus", which means that there was no agreement on the title, and the current one was reverted to as the default option, given that it was marginally more long term and stable than the alternatives and we can't leave a move discussion open for ever, when no new arguments are being added. That means my close above does not favour either interpretation of the article's scope, as to whether it goes back to 1947 or to 1988, you'll have to figure that out through discussion here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: the page was retitled just in order to narrow the scope. Since the retitling has no consensus, the old title and the old scope are back in the frame. Problematics, your arguments have no merit. You should drop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

:::@Amakuru: Can this new contentious section exist without consensus or should we delete it from the article in the meantime? My position is that since the scope is still disputed (as you yourself have implied) this new content should not be added without consensus. Problematics (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Not a good question. Amakuru has clearly said you'll have to figure that out through discussion here. Is that not clear enough for you?

I have reinstated the 1947 section consistent with the position I articulated here well before this move saga. So far you haven't made any headway in countering it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

My question is to Admin Amakuru, not to you or other editors. I don't think Wikipedia allows adding new contentious sections while there is still a dispute ongoing regarding whether that new section is even within the article's scope. @Amakuru: while you say that the scope is still disputed other editors have recently taken the liberty to extend the scope of the article without securing a consensus. I would like your take on that. Should we delete the new addition until those who want it can actually achieve a consensus for extending the scope and adding it?

:::::And I am trying to follow WP:NOCON here. Let me quote the policy 'In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.'

Also please note that the history section was not in the previous stable versions of the article. Problematics (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

You would be certainly right to invoke WP:NOCON if an active dispute about the content exists. But you are not disputing it. Your position merely amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You cannot hold up the expansion of the article on that basis. Having reverted the content twice, you need to start an active, policy-based discussion so that the dispute can be resolved. If not, either I or other editors are free to reinstate again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::: The dispute is certainly active and continuing. Lets not beat around the bush. I have raised my points on this talkpage many times and repeated my objections under this sub-section too. If you like I can restate them again in a new section (yet again!) Problematics (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

@Problematics: as I said, the content issue should be resolved through discussion on the talk page, and I think we can consider this thread to be just such a discussion. At present, in this particular discussion, it seems like only you are arguing for the narrower scope, while several others are arguing that including material related to pre-1988 should be included. That means that at present there is a consensus on this talk page that pre-1988 material should not be removed, as that is the way the conversation is going. I'm sorry if that's not the answer you're looking for, and of course there are the usual Wikipedia:Dispute resolution channels available if you think something unreasonable is happening, but for now it does appear to me that the consensus view is against you. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: A truer indicator of consensus on this page would be the thread Scope of the article. On it four users favoured retaining the initial scope. Me, User:Mar4d, User: Owais Khursheed, User:NadirAli. Four other users supported expanding it. Kautilya3, TylerDurden, Capitals00 and D4iNa4. A fifth user Megalibrarygirl also commented but not on the scope itself. Of the four who supported expansion the latter two were already accused by the third (TylerDurden) of POV editing to dilute the happenings in Indian administered Kashmir. There wasn't any consensus here. Problematics (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Repetition of some concerns

Scholars when discussing rape in Kashmir conflict (Yes, Kashmir conflict) discuss it in the context of the post 1988 conflict. If at all 1947 events are discussed, they are discussed as part of the First Kashmir War and/or Violence against women during the partition of India. The scholarly sources cited for this article confirm this pattern. A nice example is Seema Kazi's wonderful entry on Oxford Online. It defines 'conflict' as the post 1988 one. Wikipedia articles should follow the precedents established in scholarly sources and other encyclopedic entries. Wikipedia's job is to describe a subject as it is described commonly in scholarly sources, not to create new descriptions.

Another point, adding events of four decades prior to the main discussion messes the layout of the page which should be modeled structurally after similar specific-conflict focused pages from the same category such as Rape during the Bosnian War, Rape during the occupation of Japan. The article lacks flow with addition of 1947 events.

And it is WP:UNDUE. Its just not within the article's scope. This article begins with the line Since the onset of the insurgency.... The beginning line sets the scope of the article. It does not begin with Rape happened in 1947 and then again 40 years later in Kashmir....

Let me quote the policy

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The aspect of 1947 events has no prominence in discussion about post 1988 rapes in the sources. Problematics (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

unproductive conduct discussion

WP:DE, WP:CIR applies here on your part. You are frequently told to drop the stick already, but you can't hear.. Capitals00 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC) Hi User:Capitals00. Some of what you have quoted is non-binding essays. As for disruptive editing, I am actually trying to build consensus here. ( WP:DISRUPTSIGNS ) Several editors such as User:Mar4d share my concerns here too. Problematics (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for titling this section "repetition of concerns". Mere repetition serves no purpose. We expect that you have read the comments that I or other editors have made in response, and take them into account in some way. No such effort is visible. Are you expecting us to similarly repeat what we said before, just like you are doing? This is not the way to resolve disputes. In any case, now that we are here, I am going to elaborate the issues that you have raised and we have answered. It is all a "repetition", so to speak. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

So far none of my concerns have been addressed. That is why I need to repeat them. And I am not the only user who had to repeat themself here. User:TylerDurden said the same about themself above Problematics (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Content fork

This article is a content fork. (You need to click on that link and read the page.) There is no single book or research article titled "Rape in Kashmir conflict". It is a made-up title. It is part of the Kashmir conflict, which is a proper subject, and it also relates to Wartime sexual violence, which is also a proper subject. So the scope of this article is determined by the intersections of those two subjects. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think its a fork. It passes WP:GNG. There are many reliable secondary sources for rape and sexual violence in Kashmir since the beginning of 1990. It has also received "significant coverage" over and over again. Let me quote the policy, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As other users have said before. This is about a specific type of human rights violations which actually breaks beyond other human rights abuses. Problematics (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope

See WP:Scope. The title together with the lead determines the scope of the article. The title is now fixed, until you can raise another request for move (and no guarantee that you will succeed then either). And that title now determines what goes into the article. Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular point of view on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular point of view. I am afraid that is exactly what you are dong. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid the scope was established in the article's very first line. The only point you may use is the title, whose extent is still being disputed. Essays are also non-binding, they are not policies. But if you insist, let me point this out to you:

When the name of an article is a term that refers to several related topics in secondary reliable sources, primary topic criteria should be followed to determine if any of the uses of that term is the primary topic. If so, then the scope of the article should be limited to, or at least primarily, cover that topic. Problematics (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Essays are best efforts made by experienced editors to explain how Wikipedia should be written. If you disagree with them, you can go and propose changes on their talk pages and see what the reaction will be.

As to your "point", are you claiming that the primary meaning of "Kashmir conflict" is the present insurgency (like the primary meaning of "cat" is cat)? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As for the first line of the lead, no great reliance can be placed upon it. It is still a work in progress. The article got created on 19 April and within a week the scope was challenged. The lead determines the scope only after the article gets well-established and begins to represent a broad consensus of editors. That is not the case here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes in the context of conflict rape in Kashmir or context of rape in conflict, its primary meaning is in the insurgency.

You cited WP:SCOPE. It advises Looking at what scopes other encyclopedias have chosen can often be useful. So lets see a few encyclopedia entries.

This here is an authoritative encyclopedia on women in war. Please look at the scope of sexual violence discussed in it on Kashmir. The sexual violence it discusses on both sides begins from 1990 onwards. Nothing about 1947. Not a whisper.

There are others. None of them seem keen on including 1947. Problematics (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Problematics: [68] can you please reply to this directly? Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• It is WP:UNDUE to add 1947 events when sources describe the issue as emanating from 1989. Didn't Kautilya3 himself differentiate between the India-Pakistan conflict from 1947 and the one in Indian administered Kashmir since 1989?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

But you had opposed the name change because you knew that it would mean the coverage of abuses in entire Kashmir conflict including those by Pakistan. Now we have to go by the title. Capitals00 (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Seema Kazi and Oxford Islamic

I am glad that you find the Seema Kazi's article on Oxford Islamic Studies Online to be a "wonderful entry" (if at all a subject like this can be "wonderful" in some way). Knowing Kashmir conflict well as I do, I don't find her treatment balanced at all. India's claim to Kashmir does not rest on the Maharaja's accession alone. It also rests on the agreement of Sheikh Abdullah's National Conference, the largest and most popular party in the Kashmir Valley at that time. And, the Maharaja's accession to India was directly provoked by Pakistan's invasion, a fact that she forgets to mention. The present insurgency is also largely sponsored by Pakistan, which she also forgets to mention. There are plenty of reliable sources, including by Muslim writers, that show that Zia-ul Haq tied up with Jamaat-e-Islami way back in 1980 to rise an armed insurgency in Kashmir. Either she is unaware of that, or she doesn't care to consider it. Oxford Islamic Studies Online is essentially a repository of "Islamic scholarship". Seema Shekhawat has also written about gender issues in Kashmir, but her viewpoints are not covered in the repository. The authors featured on the repository represents all hues of Islamic viewpoints, including various far-right writers and groups. Liberal Islamic writers are hardly represented. On the whole, the entire collection is hued significantly to the right of centre. Given that, it is foolhardy to rely on one writer and one entry in this repository to claim the extent of scope for a made-up subject like this one. I admit that there is a big jump from 1947 to 1989, but there are reliable sources covering both the periods. An encyclopedia has the purpose of bringing together a variety of sources covering multiple aspects of a subject. If not, people can go and read Oxford Islamic on their own, why read the Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a very weak argument. As quoted by WP:RS: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. So when you use the term "made-up", you are in essence denying and contradicting WP:COVERAGE which for this subject remains highly focused and specific. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a repository or mouthpiece of the Indian government. We are here to be objective, and not obligated to lend WP:UNDUE weight to their POV or promote their propaganda. Whether that's w.r.t. forced/manipulative occupation via a disputed instrument of accession, or a self-sown insurgency, none of it changes the underlying scope of this very serious human rights issue. FYI, Kashmir has been called the "most densely militarized zone in the world" since 1989. Are there any second guesses then, that why reports have described it as a conflict zone with one of the world's highest rates of sexual violence? Mar4d (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mar4d, please don't make up spurious arguments and demolish them. I never denied that it is a reliable source, despite being apparently biased. I am however denying that it is a defining source that determines the subject of this article. I also never said anything about the Indian government. You are needlessly politicising this debate whereas you should know better. The issue here is what kind of authority this one source, essentially a blog post summarising a book published by a now-defunct activist publisher, has. If you know anything more about the source please enlighen us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also good sources don't omit, or at least manipulate facts, despite representing biased POVs. Here are some "wonderful" research observations made by Seema Kazi regarding the very subject of this article which I had to cross-check and remove. [69] [70] "Rape in the Kashmir conflict" is obviously a made-up title. I repeat what Kautilya noted above: There is no single book or research article titled "Rape in Kashmir conflict". They use the title "Rape in Kashmir". As we were bound here to choose and go with the title "Rape in the Kashmir conflict", we're supposed to document content accordingly. Having said all this repeatedly for the hundredth time on the same talk page, are you guys suggesting that we should not include material from 1947 in an article that has the title "Rape in the Kashmir conflict", just because some activist-scholar "defined" the Kashmir conflict as post 1988 one, in her 'Oxford Islamic' work? 'Kashmir conflict started in 1947' is not a perspective or assessment, its a fact, as observed by countless impeccable sources. Its quite unfortunate that we, as Wikipedians, have come down to debate this. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:::: Seema Kazi is not the only one who has defined it as such. :Through a search of the term 'Rape in Kashmir Conflict' on Google Books, I am faced with many sources discussing Rape in Kashmir without a peep about sexual violence in 1947. Many of these sources have also been already used in the article by myself and other editors.

Google Books

This falls neatly into my argument about WP:DUE. That what you are trying to include is not an aspect of the subject. Leaving aside Kazi, no one who discusses rape in Kashmir seems to think sexual violence in 1947 is relevant at all.

I will quote Wikipedia policy again for everyone's benefit: Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Problematics (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Dear Problematics, why are you actually being so problematic? Do you want this problem to be unresolved forever? Do you still seriously think you can file a new REM and gain consensus for your problematic title Rape in Kashmir conflict (1988-present)? (I don't think so.) And why aren't you even listening to what people are writing for you, Problematics? Our title, "Rape in the Kashmir conflict" is a made-up title. There is no single book or research article titled "Rape in Kashmir conflict". (repeating for you, the third time) Your Google search results also return the same. And Kashmir conflict unarguably started in 1947, also the rape in Kashmir conflict (our title) unarguably started in 1947, though that rape has no relation to the rape during post-1988. Anyway we're not trying to establish any relation between them here, we're merely documenting both, as is our job in Wikipedia. So Problematics, I hope you drop your problematic argument. :-) Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC) ::I am fine with the present title. However, a number of editors including me, User:Mar4d, User:Owais Khursheed User:Nadir Ali have raised concerns here on the talkpage regarding the article's scope. Also please see WP:NPA. Regards, Problematics (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Dear Problematics, how do you propose to limit the scope of the article when its title is "Rape in the Kashmir conflict" (which is taken from no book or research article to make a case to define/limit the scope - reminding you for the fourth time), and not any of the terms like "Rape in Kashmir" or "Rape in Indian administered Kashmir"? — Tyler Durden (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

:::: I will get back to you in a while Tyler. In the meantime, since you want to add content the WP:ONUS is on you to explain why this new content should be added. I have already elaborated somewhat on the meaning of conflict in this article. Problematics (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Hey dear Problematics. meaning of conflict in this article: Meaning of the term 'Kashmir conflict'? The term already has a well-established meaning/definition — it is defined as a territorial conflict that started in 1947, for which I don't think that I'm expected even to produce RS here now. Your sources (that too, I guess there are merely some two or three of them in number) that you use to claim the "definition" or "meaning" or whatever of the conflict do not use the term 'Kashmir conflict' in their titles or content, they only use the term 'conflict' while doing so, referring to the current-stage conflict, i.e, Kashmir insurgency. (For reasons of clarity and consistency this article uses Kashmir to refer to the Valley of Kashmir, also the location of the present conflict.[emphasis mine] — which is even indicated by the content which you yourself quoted somewhere above for your claim(s), from the Seema Kazi source.) This term(Kashmir insurgency), we have already tried to take to the title on your own suggestion, and failed in every way. You're clearly attempting to evoke a dead snake by just throwing shots in the dark hoping they will hit something, without at least filing a new WP:RM asking to change the title to Rape in Kashmir conflict (1988-present), which I'm pretty sure, you'll lose again anyway due to the lack of consensus. why this new content should be added? Because the term 'Kashmir conflict' in the title compels me or anyone else to do so, for obvious reasons. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What you want to add is not improving this article. Kautilya3 has also affirmed in admission that its a 'huge jump' between 1947 and 1989. Also please consider WP:TOPIC. I will quote it,The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic.

And lets see scope of article,

As per estimates in this internal dimension of the Kashmir conflict over 9,000 women were raped

The current conflict started in 1989

Human Rights Watch first documented sexual violence in conflict in 1993 when we published a report about how Indian security forces in Kashmir used rape to brutalise women and punish their communities, accused of sympathizing with separatist militants.

...the use of rape as a strategy of conflict are described in Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, Rape in Kashmir...

How many more sources do you need to be shown that rape/sexual violence in conflict in Kashmir's context means the one during the insurgency in ordinary reliable sources?

Any you are yet to satisfy WP:ONUS. Let me requote it [again], Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I still am not convinced that 1947 satisfies the WP:DUE requirement. That is a part of verifiability a core content principle on Wikipedia Problematics (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

And consensus is against you. 5 active editors agree with the version while you or one more disagrees. Capitals00 (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

::::::::That is actually untrue. Please self-revert. You are violating WP:NOCON. Problematics (talk) 08:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Please don't edit war, comrades. And dear Problematics, please read this section again, for which you're giving no any categorical reply. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Summarising

I think it is clear that there are plenty of secondary and tertiary sources that deal with rape during the present insurgency, but there are practically none that deal with the 1947 conflict and the present insurgency together. It is also true that dealing with both will lead to a disjointed treatment in the article. These facts support Problematics's position on the content of the article.

However Rape in the Kashmir conflict would be a wrong title for the content. It misleadingly implies that the Kashmir conflict started in 1989 or that rape was not an issue in the prior stages. The only solution then is to rename this article to Rape during the Kashmir insurgency. Let us consider that for a while and see if we can agree on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

:Yes, thank you. That was my point. I also have no issue with someone creating a separate page for 1947 violence. But this page should receive separate treatment. I am happy with your new proposed title. Problematics (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC) CU blocked sock of User:Faizan

Yes there are sources that have discussed the both events (present insurgency and 1947 conflict),[71][72][73] Where as no sources deal with exact "Rape during the Kashmir insurgency" but human rights for which we already have articles, not to forget that such title had been already rejected during the recent page move request. Consider opening a new page move request in at least 6 months, until then we can deal with entire Kashmir conflict as per the current page title. Capitals00 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous page move request was premature. The issue of content wasn't discussed sufficiently before it was issued. As for myself, I see merit in Problematics's position on the content, which is now supported by enough sources. If you don't agree, you can keep discussing or file an RfC or whatever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Apart from the sources I provided that have detailed rape in Kashmir in 1947 as well as after 1989, I can see what you are saying but "insurgency" in Kashmir started in 1947. These 2 from Routledge and Oxford are enough to describe it.[74][75] So either we can expand the current page, or name it to something like "Rape in Jammu and Kashmir (1989 - present)", then only you can get rid of mentioning the events from 1947, 1965 and others. But could be also seen as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why we are removing sourced relevant content and finding ways to remove them? The 2005 case[76] occurred in Pakistan is yet to be mentioned somewhere. Capitals00 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "Rape during Kashmir insurgency" is correct English for the title of this article. Is it? Someone who is clear on this with a good knowledge of English, please tell me. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

A naive reading of it would still mean rape committed by insurgents. But I think "during" makes it a bit more ambiguous. On the whole, I see it as an accpetable compromise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, then I support this compromise. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like we are tangling on rejected proposals again. Don't forget that page move was recently requested, article once again concerns Kashmir conflict. Capitals00 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We should not think of renaming. The current version of article is all good and it should stay. Just because one editor seems to be disagreeing and edit warring after making WP:POINT, he would be sanctioned for it. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. It seems the current title has not satisfied everyone and trying something new is harmless. If current states don't give a common consensus, why are people afraid to try out new things. The editing feature allows change if current state is inaccurate or unsatisfying. I say we should give it a shot.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Rename instead to Rape during the Kashmir Insurgency to deal with both the faulty English and scope of the article. ← I am reiterating what I had proposed earlier but the comment was removed by Amakuru. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Rape in Jammu and Kashmir (1989 - present) seems to be the most ideal title in this situation. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read discussion again, it seems that User:Capitals00, User:Owais Khursheed, User:Problematics have also proposed a similar page title, "Rape in Jammu and Kashmir (1989 - present)", I would like to ask them if they support this page title. I would say it again that it fits the article most, because Kashmir Insurgency started in 1947 and Kashmir Conflict (shared between India and Pakistan) also started since 1947. Scholars mention rape in Jammu and Kashmir and more frequently pointing out "since 1989".[77][78][79] That's why Rape in Jammu and Kashmir (1989 - present) is best choice and finally rid of WP:SYNTH. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the proposed title of 'Rape during the Kashmir insurgency'. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 03:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 and Tyler Durden: Problematics was most disruptive here than anyone, and even after unanimous consensus (after no consensus page move) on including both Pakistan and Indian Kashmir violence, he kept disrupting the process. Problematics is blocked as sock of Faizan and I believe that this should affect the consensus regarding this article. "Kashmir conflict" as we have argued, includes both Pakistan and India, and present version seems ideal for it. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)