Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:::I am sorry if you found my comment harsh. I was was just trying to be clear in my objections, but I might have have come off as too acerbic: unconditional apologies anyway. However, I do not quite agree with you that the statement is biased in the sense that it should not be included in the article. I believe the Wikipedia policy is that then when there are multiple points of view on a subject, due weight is to be given to all of them. I think the current version (which clearly states what data is due to the Indian Government and what is due to [[Human Rights Watch]]) satisfies this requirement, but the one without the GOI's view will probably not. What do you think? |
:::I am sorry if you found my comment harsh. I was was just trying to be clear in my objections, but I might have have come off as too acerbic: unconditional apologies anyway. However, I do not quite agree with you that the statement is biased in the sense that it should not be included in the article. I believe the Wikipedia policy is that then when there are multiple points of view on a subject, due weight is to be given to all of them. I think the current version (which clearly states what data is due to the Indian Government and what is due to [[Human Rights Watch]]) satisfies this requirement, but the one without the GOI's view will probably not. What do you think? |
||
:::Secondly, the source from [http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/index.html SATP] you quoted is rather incomparable to the Times of India source for two reasons: first, it is only partly derived from Home Ministry sources (only the second column: look at the ** mark) and second, it does not break up civilian deaths as those caused by security forces and those caused by militant groups. [[User:Piyush Sriva|Piyush]] ([[User talk:Piyush Sriva|talk]]) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
:::Secondly, the source from [http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/index.html SATP] you quoted is rather incomparable to the Times of India source for two reasons: first, it is only partly derived from Home Ministry sources (only the second column: look at the ** mark) and second, it does not break up civilian deaths as those caused by security forces and those caused by militant groups. [[User:Piyush Sriva|Piyush]] ([[User talk:Piyush Sriva|talk]]) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::Here is the source from Home Ministry where SATP derives from [http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/AR(E)1112.pdf] and is exactly the same. It does not give the breakup, however as you can see the total number of civillian's killed in 2008 is given as 91 while the article states 147 and the number killed given for 2009 is 71 while the article states 83, which make you think how reliable the figures are and the conclusions made there of. I agree with the Wikipedia policy regarding multiple points of view however Human Rights Watch is a neutral party while GOI is not. The GOI stats have always been quite contrary to the reports by human right organisations which report thousands killed by security forces[http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA20/022/2002/en/97c3d0a6-d779-11dd-b024-21932cd2170d/asa200222002en.html][http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session13/IN/JS22_UPR_IND_S13_2012_JointSubmission22_E.pdf]. The APDP (Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons) who reported the existence of mass graves initially [http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA01/010/2008/en/53905532-750f-11dd-8e5e-43ea85d15a69/asa010102008en.pdf] claim over 70,000 killed by Indian security forces[http://www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/files/Documenten/Kasjmir/facts-under-ground-kashmir.pdf][[User:Truth4all|Truth4all]] ([[User talk:Truth4all|talk]]) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== section Indian Security Forces == |
== section Indian Security Forces == |
Revision as of 12:50, 23 July 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reference 20 about kashmir pandits and Pakistan
I have noticed the reference used when referring to ethnig cleansing of hindus and sikhs, the final reference mentions pakistan. My main concern is the credibility of the source I have checked the book on Google books and if you scroll to page 146 the author says "The 1947 unprovoked aggression did not give the desired results to Pakistan in it's nefarious design to annex the region by brute force. Their plans were foiled by the Indian armed forces, vehemently supported by a rock-combine of peace-loving Muslims and Hindus, under local leadership, with their impenetrable will to resist the onslaught. But the Pakistan war mongers rose again" This is on Page. 146
The reference is clearly biased, and doesn't seem to be a factual or unbiased news report, but just the opinion of one man, I feel that is not a credible reference when referring to Pakistan and is worth removing. (Wiki id2(talk) 17:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC))
- Have you already removed this? Ref 20 currently points to Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction and a search for "The 1947 unprovoked aggression" gives no results in that source Darkness Shines (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- When I wrote the thing it was ref 20 it's now moved down to ref 22. The book is by M.K. Haw: Kashmir Education, culture and science society.
When you click on the link, in the left side bar of the webpage search Pakistan, and on Page 146 you will see what I've mentioned above (Wiki id2(talk) 21:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC))
- Haw is an editor, the chapter was written by S. Bhatt. The publisher is not an academic one, and does not even have a website. The Kashmir Education, culture and science society does not list this book s one of their publications either[1] and to be honest a source from there would be a tad biased in my opinion. I would say it is not good for statements of fact and personally I would remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the references quoted for the ethnic cleansing of hindus and sikhs are biased and quite exaggerated. For example, the number of kashmiri pandits killed is 219 as per government reports and 399 as per the local pandit organisation KPSS which is far less and not even close to numbers mentioned in these references. [2][3][4][5]. I advocate removal of these references and statements there from.Truth4all (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Title
The original title for this article was the right one covering the content. There's already an article covering AJK so that title should be retained. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikireader, there's no "entire state" of J&K controlled by the three nations... there's the whole Kashmir region and their own respective administrative areas within three states. The state can only be called as a whole while describing the region or while referring to the historical princely state which has its own article. The current issues are political and related to the countries in control and should have separate articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have been thinking on this issue since I moved the page. Here are my thoughts, Human rights abuses in Kashmir should be the parent article with a brief overview of all the different sections, then we have sub articles for each region. So we should move this back to Human rights abuses in J&K, there are already an article for abuses in not so free Kashmir and I am willing to write stubs for Gilgat and the Chinese administered regions. I will ask an admin to move the article back and we can expand this one to include a bit of everything, thoughts? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Which is now done, this should prevent further argument over what goes were. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong statement atributed to source
One of the statements in the lede said: "The Indian security forces have killed more Kashmiri civilians as compared to human rights abuses which occurred at the hands of rebels.", and cited it to this source, which in fact clearly states that this has not been the case in general, and happened for the first time only in 2010. Relevant quotations from the source:
"For the first time since insurgency started in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80s, more civilians have been killed by security forces than terrorists."
"Even in 2008, when the Amarnath land agitation hit both Jammu and Kashmir regions, out of the total of 147 civilians killed in the year only 57 died in actions by security forces. The rest of the killings, 90, were in terrorist actions."
I have therefore removed the offending unsourced statement. Piyush (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Piyush, You are correct in noticing the discrepancy added by the above editor. Another editor has explained this clearly here in this section do have a look. --DBigXray 11:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The statement "For the first time since insurgency started in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80s, more civilians have been killed by security forces than terrorists" is clearly biased and targetted at undermining the human right abuses by security forces. It is contradictory to the numerous human right organisations reports. Also, Human Rights Watch quote "armed militant organizations in Kashmir have also targeted civilians, although not to the same extent as have the security forces"[6]. Statement therefore removed.Truth4all (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I reverted you, the source is not an Op-Ed. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- User:Truth4all, I had a look at the source, and it is clearly not an OP-ed, but a news article from the Times of India. I have rewritten the statement to make sure the source of the statistics is clear (a presentation to the Indian Government's Cabinet Committee on Security). Please try to realize that if a reported fact does not agree with your views on the situation, that does not mean it is necessarily biased. Piyush (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Piyush, DS for pointing out.
- @Piyush, that is not true and a bit harsh, I have not given my personal opinion but stated the statement is contradictory to a number of human right organisation reports and is based on statistics from Indian government which are not impartial and not reliable, the stats even do not match its own Indian home ministry statistics [7]. The author has endorsed the governments statistics verbatim and so cannot be considered a neutral point of view.Truth4all (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am sorry if you found my comment harsh. I was was just trying to be clear in my objections, but I might have have come off as too acerbic: unconditional apologies anyway. However, I do not quite agree with you that the statement is biased in the sense that it should not be included in the article. I believe the Wikipedia policy is that then when there are multiple points of view on a subject, due weight is to be given to all of them. I think the current version (which clearly states what data is due to the Indian Government and what is due to Human Rights Watch) satisfies this requirement, but the one without the GOI's view will probably not. What do you think?
- Secondly, the source from SATP you quoted is rather incomparable to the Times of India source for two reasons: first, it is only partly derived from Home Ministry sources (only the second column: look at the ** mark) and second, it does not break up civilian deaths as those caused by security forces and those caused by militant groups. Piyush (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here is the source from Home Ministry where SATP derives from [8] and is exactly the same. It does not give the breakup, however as you can see the total number of civillian's killed in 2008 is given as 91 while the article states 147 and the number killed given for 2009 is 71 while the article states 83, which make you think how reliable the figures are and the conclusions made there of. I agree with the Wikipedia policy regarding multiple points of view however Human Rights Watch is a neutral party while GOI is not. The GOI stats have always been quite contrary to the reports by human right organisations which report thousands killed by security forces[9][10]. The APDP (Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons) who reported the existence of mass graves initially [11] claim over 70,000 killed by Indian security forces[12]Truth4all (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Piyush, that is not true and a bit harsh, I have not given my personal opinion but stated the statement is contradictory to a number of human right organisation reports and is based on statistics from Indian government which are not impartial and not reliable, the stats even do not match its own Indian home ministry statistics [7]. The author has endorsed the governments statistics verbatim and so cannot be considered a neutral point of view.Truth4all (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
section Indian Security Forces
Truth4all stop bombarding and edit warring the refs into the article. This is WP:Citation overkill discuss the statement that you want to be included and show how it supports the content.--DBigXray 16:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I had explained the statement on my talk page as Darkness shines after reverting by edit had put the Question there. I have not bombarded but added additional references as there are a large number of reports of human right abuses at different times by many different sources of different abuses. I am discussing the statement here again. I have provided a number of citations not just the HRW report mentioned by Darkness Shines including other reports from HRW, amnesty international, UNCHR and others. These are only few of the reports from the said organisations and many more are on their websites which I have not included to avoid citation overkill. The human right abuses by Indian security forces are widely documented and established by human right organisations. Thousands of Kashmiris have been killed with some reports estimating upto 100,000 and majority allegedly by Indian security forces. In addition the discovery of mass graves now numbering over 6000 in only few districts are filled with thousands of Kashmiris allegedly killed by Indian security forces in enforced disappearances and false encounter.Truth4all (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes human rights abuses are well documented, by both Indian security forces and terrorists. However I have yet to see a source saying 100,000 have died at the hands of just the security forces. Were is your source for 6000 mass graves? And not an opinion piece an reliable source is needed for this. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have mentioned thousands of Kashmiris have died and by some reports upto 100,000 [13] and majority of abuses are reported to be committed by Indian security forces including unlawful killing, torture and enforced dissappearances[14]. As I keep repeating please go through the numerous other reports available besides the ones mentioned (to avoid citation overkill), like these recent ones from HRW[15] and amnesty[16] which state unlawful killing, torture and dissappearance of "thousands" of Kashmiris. Regarding the issue of mass graves, the state human rights commission had identified over 2700 mass graves in september 2011 [17] and the number has increased to over 6000 by now.[18][19] Truth4all (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your first source does not say 100'000 killed, it says 50'000 with some reports saying up to 100'000. You misrepresented the source. It is also an Op-Ed originally published in the Letters from section of Foreign Affairs.[20] Your second source, also an Op-Ed does not say the majority of killings were carried out by security forces that I can see. Your Amnesty source [21] does not mention thousands killed, so please tell me were you are getting these numbers from? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not misquote my statements, I have stated as in the source[22] "by some reports" upto 100,00 have been killed and the source you are undermining as Op-ED is from the Human Right Watch Director[23] which is backed by the numerous reports by the human right organisations like these[24][25][26][27][28][29] and many more as well the recent findings of mass graves where thousands of Kashmiris have been allegedly dumped by Indian security forces in unlawful killings, custodial deaths and enforced disappearances[30][31][32]. That is where the numbers come from.Truth4all (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- They are Op-Eds, and can only be used when attributed. Your source for 6000 mass graves is of no use at all, it is also an Op-Ed. One of your sources in fact directly contradicts it[33] "Amnesty International urges the Government of India to launch urgent investigations into hundreds of unidentified graves discovered since 2006 in Jammu and Kashmir." And none of those sources say the security forces have killed the majority at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- "They" are not Op-Eds only, please do not make false generalisations. I have provided other reports describing human right abuses by Indian security forces and there are many more and since you keep on ignoring and misinterpreting them I am quoting few here,
- "Hundreds of men, women and children have reportedly been extrajudicially executed in four successive years by the security forces, often in reprisal for attacks on their own personnel. Many other human rights violations are outside the scope of this report. They include hundreds of extrajudicial executions and "disappearances" as well as the detention of many thousands of political prisoners held for many months or years without being brought to trial[34]."The brutality of torture in Jammu and Kashmir defies belief. It has left people mutilated and disabled for life. The severity of torture meted out by the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir is the main reason for the appalling number of deaths in custody".[35]."For their part, Indian troops continue to summarily execute detainees, kill civilians in reprisal attacks and burn down neighborhoods and villages as collective punishment for those suspected of supporting the militants"."The summary execution of detainees by the Indian army, the Border Security Force (BSF) and other security personnel has been a hallmark of counterinsurgency operations in Kashmir. There is no precise figure for the number of persons killed in custody since the conflict began in 1990, but records kept by human rights groups suggest that the numbers are at least in the hundreds, and perhaps higher"[36]."We have been gravely concerned for a long time about the high level of human rights violations in the state where thousands of people have been tortured and killed in custody, extrajudicially executed or ‘disappeared’. Such abuses have been carried out with virtual impunity as the political will to address them has been lacking under previous governments".[37]."Hundreds of civilians, including women and children, have been extrajudicially executed. Often these deliberate killings have been disguised by officials claiming they occurred in"encounters" or "cross-fire". They continue to be regularly reported. Such killings and hundreds of deaths in custody -- by far the highest in any Indian state --are facilitated by laws that provide the security forces with virtual immunity from prosecution [38].
- And in regards to finding of mass graves[39][40][41][42], "Indian security forces have long been responsible for enforced disappearances-that is, they deny having custody of an individual, typically in conjunction with their torture or extrajudicial execution. Kashmiri human rights defenders say that at least eight thousand people have "disappeared" since the conflict began; most were last seen in the custody of troops"[43].“The Indian security forces have ‘disappeared’ countless people in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989 and staged fake encounter killings while fabricating claims that those killed were militants”[44]."The police report concludes that there is “every probability” that the remaining over 2100 unidentified graves may contain the dead bodies of [persons subject to] enforced disappearances”[45]. "Kashmiris believe that many of the thousands "disappeared" over the last two decades were dumped into unmarked graves. The government has ignored calls for an independent investigation by human rights groups to determine the fate of the victims"[46]."For years, Kashmiris have been lamenting their lost loved ones, their pleas ignored or dismissed as the government and army claimed that they had gone to Pakistan to become militants. But these graves suggest the possibility of mass murder"[47].“Recent revelations have confirmed what families in Kashmir have been alleging all along,” said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Indian security forces have ‘disappeared’ countless people in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989 and staged fake encounter killings while fabricating claims that those killed were militants”[48].Truth4all (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support adding this to the article. It's relevant and sourced. Please proceed with adding it in but make sure that you don't copy paste the text from there. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- T4a, look at your sources, read what they say then look at the edit you made. The most of your quotes above say hundreds killed, only one says thousands. Mass graves are not good for statements of fact as you used them for, given they contain "Kashmiris believe" "graves suggest the possibility" these sources are not making statements of fact, but you are using them for just that purpose. If you add the same content again I will have little choice but to remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- DS, Pay attention to dates. These reports are from different years since the conflict like this one from 1995 ""Hundreds of men, women and children have reportedly been extrajudicially executed in four successive years by the security forces"[49]. This report describes killings of hundreds of people in just 4 years into the conflict and there are numerous other reports from subsequent years. The later reports state thousands killed by Indian security forces like this one from 2002, "thousands of people have been tortured and killed in custody, extrajudicially executed or disappeared"[50]. And the mass graves of murdered Kashmiris by Indian security forces is a fact confirmed[51].Truth4all (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- They are Op-Eds, and can only be used when attributed. Your source for 6000 mass graves is of no use at all, it is also an Op-Ed. One of your sources in fact directly contradicts it[33] "Amnesty International urges the Government of India to launch urgent investigations into hundreds of unidentified graves discovered since 2006 in Jammu and Kashmir." And none of those sources say the security forces have killed the majority at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please do not misquote my statements, I have stated as in the source[22] "by some reports" upto 100,00 have been killed and the source you are undermining as Op-ED is from the Human Right Watch Director[23] which is backed by the numerous reports by the human right organisations like these[24][25][26][27][28][29] and many more as well the recent findings of mass graves where thousands of Kashmiris have been allegedly dumped by Indian security forces in unlawful killings, custodial deaths and enforced disappearances[30][31][32]. That is where the numbers come from.Truth4all (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Your first source does not say 100'000 killed, it says 50'000 with some reports saying up to 100'000. You misrepresented the source. It is also an Op-Ed originally published in the Letters from section of Foreign Affairs.[20] Your second source, also an Op-Ed does not say the majority of killings were carried out by security forces that I can see. Your Amnesty source [21] does not mention thousands killed, so please tell me were you are getting these numbers from? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have mentioned thousands of Kashmiris have died and by some reports upto 100,000 [13] and majority of abuses are reported to be committed by Indian security forces including unlawful killing, torture and enforced dissappearances[14]. As I keep repeating please go through the numerous other reports available besides the ones mentioned (to avoid citation overkill), like these recent ones from HRW[15] and amnesty[16] which state unlawful killing, torture and dissappearance of "thousands" of Kashmiris. Regarding the issue of mass graves, the state human rights commission had identified over 2700 mass graves in september 2011 [17] and the number has increased to over 6000 by now.[18][19] Truth4all (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let him clear the burden first instead of citing "citation overkill"... that's funny when he brings refs you remove them calling them too many, lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually no, I cannot do the math, and Neither can you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Absolutely and we do not need to.Truth4all (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(out)Please do not change your comments after others have responded as you have here[52] Darkness Shines (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Support adding reliably sourced content into article. Please be WP:BOLD and help expand/improve the article with the mentioned sources. If you require any help, feel free to voice your thoughts here. Mar4d (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Here is what I believe to be a dispassionate assessment of the section. It is extremely poorly written, with phrases about extrajudicial killings sprouting in completely unrelated sections for no reason. I know that extrajudicial killings are probably the most important issue connected with this topic, that need to be emphasized. However, what that means that there has to be one sub section (probably the first) stating their instances and importance. What it does NOT mean is that references to it have to crop up in sub-sections about other things. Secondly, sections on Fake encounters and Extrajudicial Killings desperately need to be merged: those are two names for the same things, and having separate sections just takes away from the importance of this issue. Piyush (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)