Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

April

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 29 August 2023

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

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

---

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  <citation needed>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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