Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
::::Sorry, but they are not. Most are not RS. Some are opinion only. Others focus not on the online protests but only mention it in passing. For instance this source[http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/24/stories/2010072454691200.htm] is more about the invective of individuals and has but a single line on the e-protest movement. And as this particular group has but 810 members undue weight should not be given to it. Wikipedia is not for advertising nor pushing a POV. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
::::Sorry, but they are not. Most are not RS. Some are opinion only. Others focus not on the online protests but only mention it in passing. For instance this source[http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/24/stories/2010072454691200.htm] is more about the invective of individuals and has but a single line on the e-protest movement. And as this particular group has but 810 members undue weight should not be given to it. Wikipedia is not for advertising nor pushing a POV. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::First decide what is this all discussing about? inclusion of content in the article or notability of an article being considered for deletion? And be specific while talking about any of the above sources, don't make a generalized statement, so to take this discussion to conclusion instead of beating about the bush. --[[User:Smsarmad|<span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span><span style="background:white;color:DodgerBlue">'''M'''</span><span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Smsarmad|Talk]]</sup> 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::::First decide what is this all discussing about? inclusion of content in the article or notability of an article being considered for deletion? And be specific while talking about any of the above sources, don't make a generalized statement, so to take this discussion to conclusion instead of beating about the bush. --[[User:Smsarmad|<span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span><span style="background:white;color:DodgerBlue">'''M'''</span><span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Smsarmad|Talk]]</sup> 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::Sms, you cannot just cherry-pick the section of your liking from one source and then say everything else is ''Indian Government POV''. The section I quoted is in that PDF. You cannot pick an choose that way. |
:::::Sms, you cannot just cherry-pick the section of your liking from one source and then say everything else is ''Indian Government POV''. The section I quoted is in that PDF. You cannot pick an choose that way. |
||
:::::BTW, you cannot restore your edit just because [[WP:ILIKEIT|you like it]], either. It's time you [[WP:STICK|dropped the stick]]. [[User:Mrt3366|<font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt</font><font face="verdana" color="red">3366</font>]][[User talk:Mrt3366|<font size="1"><sup>(Talk?)</sup></font>]] <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Mrt3366|action=edit§ion=new&preload=User_talk:Mrt3366/new_section}} <font color="green"><sup>(New thread?)</sup></font>]</span> 11:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::::BTW, you cannot restore your edit just because [[WP:ILIKEIT|you like it]], either. It's time you [[WP:STICK|dropped the stick]]. [[User:Mrt3366|<font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mrt</font><font face="verdana" color="red">3366</font>]][[User talk:Mrt3366|<font size="1"><sup>(Talk?)</sup></font>]] <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:Mrt3366|action=edit§ion=new&preload=User_talk:Mrt3366/new_section}} <font color="green"><sup>(New thread?)</sup></font>]</span> 11:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::I didn't cherry pick anything from any of these sources. Actually it is you who is [[WP:OR|combining two different things to make a claim]]. You are combining what the sources says about Maost, Northeast and Sikh rebels with the pro-separatists Kashmiri blogs and discussion forums. And for that you have misplaced the statements in the quote to support your point. Actually after reading all your arguments in this section, one clearly finds that its a clear issue of liking, you started from a ''song'' and kept on changing your stand. While I am saying what the sources say. --[[User:Smsarmad|<span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span><span style="background:white;color:DodgerBlue">'''M'''</span><span style="background:white;color:LightSeaGreen">'''S'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Smsarmad|Talk]]</sup> 16:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Chronologically wrong sequence of the sections in the article == |
== Chronologically wrong sequence of the sections in the article == |
Revision as of 16:30, 16 September 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this acceptable now?
Are these (1, 2, 3, etc) acceptable or not? If not, then tell me why not? Mrt3366 (Talk page?) 06:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Most of the see alsos belong, the two about the ISI do not. Nihil Novi Sub Sole (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- "the two about the ISI do not" - what do you mean? Mrt3366 (Talk page?) 08:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thought you were on about the see also list[1] Only one was ISI the other is SST related and should not be here. Facts, not fiction (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- "the two about the ISI do not" - what do you mean? Mrt3366 (Talk page?) 08:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- The articles on Sindh and Balochistan are not relevant here in anyway, being in South Asia is no relevancy. J&K is currently administered by India while Sindh and Balochistan are the two provinces of Pakistan, not related to J&K. I don't understand why is this being made an issue. --SMS Talk 12:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Some corrections-Sindh and Balochistan are the two disputed provinces of Pakistan. Pakistan army has been alleged to support terrorists in J&K, and they are also accused of rapes and other things in Baluchistan and Sindh. So the 3 articles are interlinked. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- How are they not relevant? All deal with human rights in the region, it strikes me as more than stupid to omit articles which deal with HRV just across the border. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- See also section should list articles that are relevant to the subject of the article. Here the subject of the article is about a region, so it should only list relevant regions not any article on HRV in any region around the world. Here relevant regions are the regions which are governed/administered by the same country who is administering Jammu & Kashmir. --SMS Talk 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- The subject of the article is human rights violations, don't be daft. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- See also section should list articles that are relevant to the subject of the article. Here the subject of the article is about a region, so it should only list relevant regions not any article on HRV in any region around the world. Here relevant regions are the regions which are governed/administered by the same country who is administering Jammu & Kashmir. --SMS Talk 12:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
POV
The article does not provide what the name suggests, that may be because it‘s written from the Indian and Pakistani point of view not from a neautral.
- Kashmiri Separatists don‘t carry weapon, how can they be perpetrators,
- Where from the term “Islamic insurgents“ came? The term only exists here on WP.
- It mentions 300000 Kashmiri Pandits instead of 100000 displaced, where does it mention 60000 Kashmiri muslims killed and 7000 disappeared by Indian forces.
- It mentions killing of 36 Sikhs by unknown, but it does not mention the aftermath killing of 6 innocent kashmiris and latter 7 by the Indian Army.
- There‘s a section on Separatists (Unarmed), but there is no section on Kunan Poshpora, Bijbehara massacre, Costodial killings for which police officers are convicted and so on .... MehrajMir ' (Talk) 12:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Were exactly do you get the notion that separatists are not armed? Of course they are armed, usually by Pakistan. “Islamic insurgents“ only exists on Wiki?I beg to differ If there are abuses missing which are notable then add them. Your tag is pointless. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Provide a single source which confirms that Separatists are armed..
- Is Kunan Poshpora incident baseless? Read the article, to get a reply.
- Whom the name is given as “Islamic insurgents“ they are actually the Kashmiri youth, they can be called as terrorists, millitants, but not the islamic..... MehrajMir ' (Talk) 16:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Which separatist group would you like a cite for? This covers three of then[2] I never said the KP was not a notable incident, I said add it. First you say “Islamic insurgents“ only exists on Wiki, I prove you incredibly wrong and you change tack, where in the article does it say the young people of Kashmir are insurgents? Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Also for weapons used by seperatists and terrorists see India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution pp134-135. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- The “Kashmiri Separatist groups“ is a broad term. It also include All Parties Hurriyat Conference, All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, Jammu Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party, United Kashmir People's National Party; the leaders and their associates such as Mohammad Abbas Ansari, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Syed Ali Shah Geelani of these parties are provided with a security cover by the Indian police. [3]
- “Kashmiri Separatist groups“ be removed with “Kashmiri Insurgents“ which covers all those extremist parties who carried/carry weapon and there is no need of a seperate term “Islamic Insurgents“
- The main units of Indian Forces such as Indian Army, Central Reserve Police Force, Border Security Force, Special Operations Group (India) be included in perpetrators, because they all are involved in human rights violations in the State.[4], [5], [6], [7].
- There should be seperate sections on main massacres such as Wandhama Massacre, Bijbehara Massacre, Zakoora And Tengpora Massacre, Sopore Massacre, Kunan Poshpora incident, to establish and restore the neutrality of the article. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 06:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- The “Kashmiri Separatist groups“ is a broad term. It also include All Parties Hurriyat Conference, All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference, Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party, Jammu Kashmir Democratic Liberation Party, United Kashmir People's National Party; the leaders and their associates such as Mohammad Abbas Ansari, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Syed Ali Shah Geelani of these parties are provided with a security cover by the Indian police. [3]
- Addressed POV and removed the template from the article. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 04:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Online protests
Why is there a section about online protests when there are no article about online protests? The current link is to a crappy rap. Would those restoring it explain their reasoning Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please tell me which policy or guideline restricts us from not having a section on a sub-topic without an article on itself. Current link is a see also link, related to this sub topic. --SMS Talk 12:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot have a section on online protests when there are no article about such. The one that was there is to a crap rap. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- And I said that please give me a link to a policy saying that. --SMS Talk 16:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well "crap rap" explains this and this. --SMS Talk 16:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you think giving a whole section to this song and without a working link is a bit too much of a stretch? Just stating them in a line in other sections would have done it if the link were available and working. Grass-root e-movement who made that who made that up on their own?? Mrt3366(Talk?) 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- No I don't think so. The content you removed prior to your comment here wasn't talking about the song, or if it was, kindly quote the relevant text here. About "who made that?", well these sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (a lot of pages), 7, 8, 9) say that Kashmiri people started it. And if the link is not working it doesn't make the content deletable. --SMS Talk 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- One of your sources says this:
- No I don't think so. The content you removed prior to your comment here wasn't talking about the song, or if it was, kindly quote the relevant text here. About "who made that?", well these sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (a lot of pages), 7, 8, 9) say that Kashmiri people started it. And if the link is not working it doesn't make the content deletable. --SMS Talk 21:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Don't you think giving a whole section to this song and without a working link is a bit too much of a stretch? Just stating them in a line in other sections would have done it if the link were available and working. Grass-root e-movement who made that who made that up on their own?? Mrt3366(Talk?) 17:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot have a section on online protests when there are no article about such. The one that was there is to a crap rap. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Use of Social Media by Separatists: |
---|
OSC has since January 2008 observed a marked increase in pro-separatist material and propaganda on social networking websites. Northeast rebels have reportedly used Orkut and YouTube for hate campaigns against the government. Remnants of Sikh separatist groups have been observed to have Khalistan (independent Sikh state) pages on
Facebook and photo streams on Flickr. A Daily News & Analysis report quoted a senior security official as saying that Maoists were recruiting youngsters through the Internet and have identified nine such blogs. The official said Maoists first send e-mail messages after identifying prospective recruits asking them how they can help the cause. The report said that the recruitment was for their under-developed intelligence wing. A number of pro-separatist blogs and discussion forums also exist on Kashmir, the most prominent of which are The Saints are Coming, Saadat's Blog (saadat.in/blog), Kashmir-truth-to-be-told.blogspot.com, and Kashmir forum (Kashmir.forumakers.com). Many of these bloggers claim to be students from Indian Kashmir and write about independence, the people's movement, and a boycott of Jammu. |
- Now would you care to explain how pro-separatist material and propaganda are same as "grass-root e-movement"? You cannot include controversial propaganda in the guise of valid information. Mrt3366(Talk?) 06:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- In 2008 500,000 protesters were seen at Srinagar crying for freedom and waving Pakistani flags. The movement of these masses of people can‘t be called as propaganda. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 08:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- We say what the sources say what you quoted from this source is Indian government POV, we need to add this too that how India's government visualizes it. The other sources as you might have seen talk about this e-movement and is very much related to the article. And be consistent with your arguments, you were first saying it is about a song that is why you removed it while it was not. --SMS Talk 13:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Now would you care to explain how pro-separatist material and propaganda are same as "grass-root e-movement"? You cannot include controversial propaganda in the guise of valid information. Mrt3366(Talk?) 06:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Anything that doesn't match with your ideology is "Indian government POV" now??? This was hosted by www.fas.org, not India.gov.in, would you care to explain how did you come to such a conclusion? By the way, if you can use this source to put forward your claims, why can't I use this to resist you? Mrt3366(Talk?) 08:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Anything that doesn't match with your ideology is "Indian government POV" now", No, this is your POV. Actually you misquoted (first you need to learn how to quote something, I can help you with that) the text from the source. The source never calls the Kashmiri blogs as promoting propaganda, it just calls them pro-separatist. And you are missing this content from the same source:
“ | The protests in the Kashmir valley over civilian killings this summer were seen spilling over to social networking sites as Facebook and Orkut, where young--presumably largely Muslim users in the 15-25 age group (Indo-Asian News Service, 6 August)--were seen using personal or community Internet pages to express their anger against what they saw as human rights abuses (The Indian Express, 17 August). Groups like the Anjuman-e-Himaayat-e-Sanbazaan-e-Kashmir (Association of Stone-Pelters of Kashmir), Koshur Mazloom (Helpless Kashmiri), Citizens of Kashmir, Bleeding Paradise, I Protest Against the Atrocities on Kashmiris, registered more than 1000 "likes" on Facebook, the Indian Express report said. Supporters of separatist leaders replaced the photo of Mahatma Gandhi on a Rs 1,000 note with that of Hurriyat chief Syed Ali Shah Gilani on Facebook |
” |
- And you can't remove the content because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a acceptable and Wikipedia is not censored. --SMS Talk 09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of your sources are junk, get decent ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry all of these are really useful sources, now drop the stick. Whether you like it or not, content is suitable and relevant to the article. You need to find better justifications for its removal. --SMS Talk 09:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but they are not. Most are not RS. Some are opinion only. Others focus not on the online protests but only mention it in passing. For instance this source[8] is more about the invective of individuals and has but a single line on the e-protest movement. And as this particular group has but 810 members undue weight should not be given to it. Wikipedia is not for advertising nor pushing a POV. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- First decide what is this all discussing about? inclusion of content in the article or notability of an article being considered for deletion? And be specific while talking about any of the above sources, don't make a generalized statement, so to take this discussion to conclusion instead of beating about the bush. --SMS Talk 16:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but they are not. Most are not RS. Some are opinion only. Others focus not on the online protests but only mention it in passing. For instance this source[8] is more about the invective of individuals and has but a single line on the e-protest movement. And as this particular group has but 810 members undue weight should not be given to it. Wikipedia is not for advertising nor pushing a POV. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry all of these are really useful sources, now drop the stick. Whether you like it or not, content is suitable and relevant to the article. You need to find better justifications for its removal. --SMS Talk 09:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- The majority of your sources are junk, get decent ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sms, you cannot just cherry-pick the section of your liking from one source and then say everything else is Indian Government POV. The section I quoted is in that PDF. You cannot pick an choose that way.
- BTW, you cannot restore your edit just because you like it, either. It's time you dropped the stick. Mrt3366(Talk?) 11:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't cherry pick anything from any of these sources. Actually it is you who is combining two different things to make a claim. You are combining what the sources says about Maost, Northeast and Sikh rebels with the pro-separatists Kashmiri blogs and discussion forums. And for that you have misplaced the statements in the quote to support your point. Actually after reading all your arguments in this section, one clearly finds that its a clear issue of liking, you started from a song and kept on changing your stand. While I am saying what the sources say. --SMS Talk 16:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Chronologically wrong sequence of the sections in the article
I see there the Armed forces act (in July 1990 Indian Armed Forces were given special powers) is mentioned before 1989 insurgency that spurred ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs and in turn resulted in the controversial act being extended in that region, why is it so???
This flawed order of the sections with pushes anachronistic POVs. The Islamic terrorists infiltrated the region in 1989 and began an ethnic cleansing campaign to convert Kashmir to a Muslim state. It ought to be chronologically sequenced otherwise some of the more impressionable readers might think that armed forces act caused the insurgency. First came the ethnic cleansing and insurgency then came Armed forces act as a retaliation. If I am not given a robust response, I will myself make the change after patiently waiting for 24 hours. Mrt3366(Talk?) 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Whats the difference where it is? It is in the section in belongs in after all. This article has become a total mess. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- AFSPA is related to Armed forces, its implemention is the cause root for human violance, its place is in the Armed forces.
- Ethnic cleansing of hindus and sikhs; Some of the sources say that they left the valley at their own, out of fear. The indian agencies are also blamed for sikh massacre and cleansing of hindus. Read the article and sources.
- Your point of Islamic insurgents came to make it a muslim state is totally baseless because the Kashmir Valley was already a muslim majority state with 97% muslims.
- The article presents now the facts with sources from a neutral point of view, therefore it has become total mess? Verry unfortunate. You see the displacement, they got everything they had lost for free at different places by the govt; but why cant you see the 60,000 deaths, 7000 disappeared, 10,000 widows, orphans? MehrajMir ' (Talk) 01:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Chronologically wrong order of sections, isn't that what I said??? I asked to change the order, re-arrangement. Did I ask for removal of content? Nope. The Ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs-section has to come before armed forces abuses in the article since it came in much before the Armed forces act was enforced in the region. Do you understand now? Give me a good reason why I ought not to change the order of the sections?
And also as a side note, there is terrible violation of WP:UNDUE in this article. There is only one and a half section for Kashmiri insurgents and as many as 9 sections more or less dedicated to Indian Armed Forces, why??? “Central Reserve Police Force”, “Special Operations Group”, “Border Security Force” then again “Indian Army”, and after all this again comes sections like “Fake encounters”, “Disappearances”, “Mass graves” which basically accuse the same organizations. Why this much redundant clutter?? What is going on? See WP:NPOV.
[9], [10], [11], [12]...goes on. Mrt3366(Talk?) 09:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Chronologically wrong order of sections, isn't that what I said??? I asked to change the order, re-arrangement. Did I ask for removal of content? Nope. The Ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs-section has to come before armed forces abuses in the article since it came in much before the Armed forces act was enforced in the region. Do you understand now? Give me a good reason why I ought not to change the order of the sections?
- Mrt3366, your rollback privileges have been snatched from you for reverting the good faith edits of Kashmir Conflict, the article of the same nature. If you dont refrain from reverting the good faith edits of the article, then surely I‘m going to plead for blocking your account. Regarding the article, I‘ve invited some experienced editors... let‘s wait ... MehrajMir ' (Talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:CANVASSING I have been accused of that too. And FYI, "rollback privilege" has been restored my dear. Do not edit war over tagging. The article is tagged because there is a dispute. I am going to restore the tags since it's neutrality is disputed. Mrt3366(Talk?) 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mrt3366, your rollback privileges have been snatched from you for reverting the good faith edits of Kashmir Conflict, the article of the same nature. If you dont refrain from reverting the good faith edits of the article, then surely I‘m going to plead for blocking your account. Regarding the article, I‘ve invited some experienced editors... let‘s wait ... MehrajMir ' (Talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
(out)That is what I meant when I said the article is a mess, and guess what? fake encounters and extra judical killings are the same thing, we have two sections which are the same for gods sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Mrt3368 changed the text of my edit , with the summary “changing tone and balancing“. I want to know, have I copy paste the content and what is meant by balancing which he uses at several places?
- Are 97% population of muslims equal to 3% of minorities?
- Are 253,000 population of minorities, who are displaced and settled now over the cource of time, this source say they left at their own out of fear, equal to 60,000 innocent killings, 7000 disappeared persons some of them may be sleeping in mass graves, 10,000 widows and 20,000 orphans, 100,000 mental patients?
- and he says there are so many sections regarding Indian forces. Why not mention them by name, when so many reliable sources are available? MehrajMir ' (Talk) 12:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Copy pasted from where? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
-
- You cannot copy and paste like that, it is a WP:COPYVIO. I have reverted the article back to before you began to edit it. Read the copyvio policy carefully please, continued copy right violations will lead to your account being blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You‘ve either misunderstood or you pretend to be. See above, I said “have I copy paste“ meaning that therefore my edits will not be changed. When did I say I‘ve copy pasted from that site. I‘ve reverted back your edits. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You said you had copied and pasted, I asked from where and you said from that times link. Now either you copy and pasted or you did not, which is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You‘ve either misunderstood or you pretend to be. See above, I said “have I copy paste“ meaning that therefore my edits will not be changed. When did I say I‘ve copy pasted from that site. I‘ve reverted back your edits. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- You cannot copy and paste like that, it is a WP:COPYVIO. I have reverted the article back to before you began to edit it. Read the copyvio policy carefully please, continued copy right violations will lead to your account being blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
-
POV and Undue templates
The article has POV and Undue templates inserted by User:Mrt3366. Please comment if these templates are necessary, and what kind of neutrality and undue weight issue has this article? The comments are required to arrive at a consesus, and to remove these templates. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 00:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Slow edit warring & possible POV
Would editors please not that edit summaries are for detail the actual edits or reverts. They are not for commuinication with other editors. The place for that is here on the article talk page. If the disruption continues, this article will be fully protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- This User:Mrt3366 may be asked what he has done and . He has removed referenced infobox , its removal is against the rules. Every bit of was referenced, he has changed the text and layout of this section and made it useless and he has done this with every edit. The edit summaries provided by the user are insufficient and conflicting. The difference in the article before and now can be seen here. His unnecessary edits may be reverted to restore the meaning of the article and the page be protected. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 06:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:MOS/Infoboxes says: “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.”
Someone inserted that infobox, I don't know who at this time, but that Infobox was saying that only Muslims have died. Nothing about lakhs of Hindu pandits. If this is not POV, then I don't know what it is. Mrt3366(Talk?) 06:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Infobox provided a brief details of the article. Its removal with the summary provided is unjustified. If it‘s think that it‘s missing something, it should be added rather removed. Regarding laks of Pandits, are they murdered? No source confirms that. This source says 219 Kashmir Pandits were killed and 140,000 displaced, this one says 399 were killed. Regarding the displacements, 506,000 were displaced, half of them are pandits and half of them are muslims according to this source. According to this source 1.5 million refugees from Indian Occupied Kashmir are living in POK and they are not Pandits. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like the infobox in general, edit summaries are limited by character. Hence I had to provide the core issue, not the general one.
"Regarding laks of Pandits, are they murdered? No source confirms that" -
- If you want sources I can give you some,
- In the injuries section, it was mentioned "countless", if you cared enough, you could have put the similar figure on the kashmiri pandits too.
“Regarding the displacements, 506,000 were displaced, half of them are pandits and half of them are muslims according to this source.” - nope. You're wrong again. Do not put your novel syntheses in the articles. The source says only this much: 506,000 were displaced, half of them are pandits nothing about Muslims being internally displaced. Hence, they could have been from any sect, even Hindus, not pandits but Hindus or Sikhs. Who knows? Besides, the infobox wasn't discussed prior to inclusion and nor did it even show the displacement figures. I don't like the infobox precisely because there are no clear numbers as to how many people died from which parties and how many were displaced.
P.S. This is an article about Human rights abuse which cannot be properly summarised in a Civilian attack infobox. Mrt3366(Talk?) 06:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like the infobox in general, edit summaries are limited by character. Hence I had to provide the core issue, not the general one.
- WP:MOS/Infoboxes says: “The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.”
- Comment The rationale given by Mrt3366 lacks clarity. Not having figures on the number of displaced Pandits is hardly a valid excuse to get rid of the entire infobox. The infobox will be restored if no reasonable justification is provided. As of current, I believe Mrt3366's slow edit warring policy is highly disrupting the article. Mar4d (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)