→"Role of Pakistan": comment |
|||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
This heading is contrary to the section being added where it is all claims even as per the text that is being added. The heading stating a factual role is highly POV to start with. Do not revert claiming the content is sourced because I did not object on OR, you've to address the matter being disputed... NPOV. Furthermore, you're now on 3RR after reverting two users - do not copy the same warning over to me as I've warned you when you reached 3 reverts. I'm hardly a part of any editwar on this article. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC) |
This heading is contrary to the section being added where it is all claims even as per the text that is being added. The heading stating a factual role is highly POV to start with. Do not revert claiming the content is sourced because I did not object on OR, you've to address the matter being disputed... NPOV. Furthermore, you're now on 3RR after reverting two users - do not copy the same warning over to me as I've warned you when you reached 3 reverts. I'm hardly a part of any editwar on this article. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::{{u|TopGun}}, thanks for discussing on talk. Read above discussion, "killing humans" is taken as criterion for "Human rights abuse". I also added reports of [[Human rights watch]] which accuse Pakistan for supporting abusive militants in Kashmir. They also explained role of Pakistan. --[[User:Human3015|'''<span style="color:red;">Human</span><span style="color:green;">3015</span>''']] 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) |
::{{u|TopGun}}, thanks for discussing on talk. Read above discussion, "killing humans" is taken as criterion for "Human rights abuse". I also added reports of [[Human rights watch]] which accuse Pakistan for supporting abusive militants in Kashmir. They also explained role of Pakistan. --[[User:Human3015|'''<span style="color:red;">Human</span><span style="color:green;">3015</span>''']] 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
* The article still has unresolved issues from the last discussion, especially those pertaining to neutrality. Everyone above agreed that to maintain balance, sources from both sides should be used. Human3015 has made more one-sided edits after that discussion, with no balance or alternative points of view presented. The lead hasn't been fixed either, where it was agreed that it's not only the Pakistani army doing the shelling on the border. I don't think we can proceed forward until Human3015 lets the article be neutralised for [[WP:NPOV]]. '''[[User:Mar4d|<font color="green">Mar4d</font>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<font color="green">talk</font>]]) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:54, 30 April 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Recent revert regarding Pakistan Army
@Human3015: This was an unexplained revert: [1]. Please discuss you reasons here. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, yes, i have had explained it earlier and in recent edit too, User Mar4d was not taking this matter to talk even after repeated requests. He is against writing about role of Pakistan army in Kashmir. Its already a neutral point of view. Role of Indian army is written, role of separatist is written so does role of Pakistan army is written. --Human3015 10:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, I have given explanation in my recent edit. His claim is that "intentional or unintentional killings in ceasefire violations is not human rights violations", do you agree with that?? Then Indian army kills some militants in Kashmir and along with that "intentionally or unintentionally" some civilians gets killed, so is it human rights violations or not?? --Human3015 11:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, if you see edit history, Mar4d just don't want word Pakistan army in this article, otherwise he linked word "Indian army" to Indian army. But here I think I'm not biased, here i have not deleted a single ill sourced thing which are against Indian army yet, many of them not well sourced. Just to achieve NPOV I added just one line of killings of Kashmiris by Pakistan army with proper references, and he started claming that it is not NPOV. Please read the sources --Human3015 11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are still dodging the question. Is there a reliable source that labels these actions as a human rights violation? If not, you can't say it. That is original research. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm saying that I already given reliable sources. If you think that killings of civilians is not human rights violations then many things in this article are subject to deletion. --Human3015 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, you haven't given a single source where the phrase "human rights" appears. If you don't have any such source, then I suggest you self-revert your revert and reinstate Mar4d's version. If you want to challenge the other material in the article, you can do so separately. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Human rights?
- @Kautilya3:, can we recheck all sources in this article and those news where they says Indian army killed some civilians but don't uses word "human rights violations" in the news, we should delete that. Same applies for militants, all bomb blasts news where they don't mention "human rights violations" are subject to delete. We have to rewrite entire article. This article is full of synthesis. --Human3015 11:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, many news saying that Indian army raped some women but news specifically don't mention that its "human rights violations", so should we delete such kind of material from the article as its pure form of synthesis work?? --Human3015 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 and Mar4d:, I will give another example, Sub section "Central reserve police force" in this article says "CRPF killed 40 unarmed civilians", and they have attached 4 news sources, but none of the source says that its "human rights violation" so its pure synthesis. If you say that "Pakistan army killing Kashmiri civilians" should be deleted from the article then all such material related to militants and Indian army should get deleted. --Human3015 12:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 and Mar4d:, I will self revert "Pakistan army" thing, but as same rule applies to everyone, i will also delete material related to Indian army and Militants where they don't mention phrase "Human rights" in sourced news. Is it ok? Should we declare "consensus has been made"? --Human3015 12:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, glad to see that you are retracting. Regarding the Indian army actions, it would be appropriate to wait for Mar4d or other editors of this page to respond. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Like I said in the edit summary, ceasefire violations happen all the time across international border. Unfortunately, civilians some times get caught (usually unintentionally) in the crossfire. However, I fail to see what that has to do with systematic human rights violations. There isn't any source which calls ceasefire issues as human rights abuses. The Indian Army has fired across the border into Pakistani Punjab, that would be like creating an article on Human rights abuses in Punjab and saying the Indian Army is carrying out human rights abuses there. It's unsourced WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Mar4d (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mar4d:, How you can be so sure that Pak army kills civilians "unintentionally" and Indian army kills "intentionally" or "Systematically"?? Do you have any source regarding this? Here question is "killings of Kashmiri people". If you want create new page on Punjab then go ahead, no problem, we will discuss about that page in talk of that page. If you think that killings by Pak army is not human rights violations then same applied to Militants and Indian army as policy of NPOV. --Human3015 15:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mar4d:, and you are saying J & K is ruled by India so India is party of Human rights issues, ok, does J & K is ruled by Militants? Kashmir is not ruled or administered by militants still we are mentioning them just because they kill Kashmiri civilians. Many of these militant groups are based in Azad Kashmir and supported by Pak army and ISI, I can give hundreds of reliable sources of it from International media, still I'm not yet writing this in article, its there in Kashmir conflict article. We can write this too. Here I'm writing only about killings of kashmiris by Pak army. They infiltrate border, come to Indian territory and targets civilians. --Human3015 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let me break this down simply: this page is about the conflict between the Indian military and the Kashmiri separatists, the two opposing parties in the conflict inside Jammu and Kashmir, and the human rights abuses committed by the involved parties against Kashmiri civilians. This article is not about border ceasefire violations which are unrelated. If you want to read about border conflicts, you can refer to articles like Indo-Pakistani wars or 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes etc. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mar4d:, to be more simple, "conflict between the Indian military and the Kashmiri separatists" is issue of article Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, this article relates with Human rights abuse on Kashmiri civilians, its not about human rights abuse of separatists. Moreover, because of Pak firing on border hundreds of villages has been vacated and those people are living in camps. I can give you source for that. This article includes sections regarding "Indian army" and "Militants"m this article also deserves separate section on "Pakistan army". Pak army is not only killing and injuring Kashmiri people but also thousands of people living in camps. --Human3015 17:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 and Mar4d:, read these news, Pakistan army not only kills Kashmiri civilians but also 10000 villagers vacated and people living in camps. Pakistani troops continue firing; over 10,000 frightened villagers abandon homes in Kashmir also Pakistan's shelling forces 7000 villagers to desert homes along International Border Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pakistan-ceasefire-violation-villagers-evacuated-samba-kathua-jammu-kashmir/1/411555.html. I think "Pakistan army" needs separate section in this article. What say?? --Human3015 17:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. These details point to something much more than "ceasefire violations", which, according to Mar4d, happen "all the time." This is the international border, not a ceasefire line. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is a disputed international border so ceasefire violations are not something out of the ordinary. Also, the article is on human rights abuses. Issues that come within scope include state/militant abuses and killings of civilians, political repression, rape torture, denial of freedom and individual rights etc. I am yet to hear a convincing argument where cross-border military exchanges come into that. It is a complicated issue and different from human rights. Would you regard the 2001 Bangladeshi-Indian border skirmish a human rights abuse? Also, the sources used above are based on Indian military/official reports and present one angle. If Indian military sources are going to be used, then it would become necessary that Pakistani military sources also be used in order to present both points of view as required by WP:NPOV. That would also include civilians who died due to firing by Indian forces on the Pakistani side of Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. These details point to something much more than "ceasefire violations", which, according to Mar4d, happen "all the time." This is the international border, not a ceasefire line. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mar4d:, According to your logic, post 9/11 bombings by US in Iraq which killed thousands of civilians was not human rights abuse because US was neither a "state" which governs Iraq or was neither "militants" like Al-Qaeeda or Hizbool Mujahideen. Border called as international border only if its not disputed otherwise its called as "Line of Control". Pak army violates ceasefire both on LoC and International border. And you yourself mentioning that "killings of civilian" by Indian army is human rights violations then Pak army not only kills civilians but thousands of people living in relief camps. If you want to write about killings of Pakistan side Kashmiris by Indian army then write it in Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. Why you want to write about human rights abuses in Pakistan side of Kashmir in Indian Kashmir article?? We have already written killings of Indian Kashmiris by Indian army. Please, you are no where near any logical argument. No argument will convince you because your profile says you belongs to Pakistan. Better you take this matter to any dispute board. We need to involve admin here. --Human3015 23:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mar4d must be correct here. The "human rights" sounds like a proper noun, and a source must mention these two words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:, nice to see you, Yes I'm also agree with Mar4d regarding word "Human rights", but same should apply to other entities too. If some sourced news mentions atrocities by militants and Indian army but don't mentions word "human rights" then such sourced material should also get deleted from this article. Because many sourced news in this article simply says that militants killed some civilians in terror attack or Indian army killed some civilians without mentioning word "human rights'. Pakistan army also killed civilians and thousands of Kashmiri civilians are living in relief camps denying their "right to shelter" because of that. --Human3015 07:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I only commented on that particular sentences because it has been touched by both of you a number of times already. I wouldn't know what sentences you are talking about until you would quote even 4 of their words here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:, nice to see you, Yes I'm also agree with Mar4d regarding word "Human rights", but same should apply to other entities too. If some sourced news mentions atrocities by militants and Indian army but don't mentions word "human rights" then such sourced material should also get deleted from this article. Because many sourced news in this article simply says that militants killed some civilians in terror attack or Indian army killed some civilians without mentioning word "human rights'. Pakistan army also killed civilians and thousands of Kashmiri civilians are living in relief camps denying their "right to shelter" because of that. --Human3015 07:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:, I can quote many things from this article, for example sub-section of "Central reserve police force" says "Indian army killed 40 civilians" and they have attached 4 news sources but none of them mentions that its "human rights" violation. There are many such examples in this article. --Human3015 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes they will have to be removed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @OccultZone:, I can quote many things from this article, for example sub-section of "Central reserve police force" says "Indian army killed 40 civilians" and they have attached 4 news sources but none of them mentions that its "human rights" violation. There are many such examples in this article. --Human3015 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mar4d and Kautilya3:, We are discussing this issue since couple of days, till now all possible editors who has this article on watchlist came here to discuss. This article has daily average 200 views according to stats.grok "Views of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir by Stats.grok , since this discussion started nearly 500 people watched this article but only 2(Kautilya3 and OccultZone) involved in discussion. This article got nearly 2500 views in last 15 days since I wrote about Pakistan army in lead of this article and out of 2500 only Mar4d challenged that edit. And we are going towards consensus, We can delete "Pakistan army" but along with that we have to remove many material regarding terrorists and Indian army which don't mention "Human rights". Is it ok for you? OccultZone and I are agree on this, if any one out of you is agree then we can do that edit. --Human3015 08:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Guys, you can't spend all your life's energies on this. Here is a possible resolution. The Indian actions inside the Indian Kashmir are clearly labelled as "human rights violations" by the Human Rights organisation reports. Let us not go back and contest that. The indiscriminate Pakistani shelling across the border which has resulted in civilian deaths and displaced civilians also counts as a human rights violation in my book. But it probably hasn't yet appeared on the radar screens of the Human Rights organisations. So, I would support including it somewhere in a small section, but please don't put it in the lead. If the Indian Army did similar shelling that affected civilians, that can also be included. If this is acceptable to all parties, then please go ahead. Otherwise, you would need to start an RfC. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, lead should mention all parties of "Human rights issues", as they mentioned all BSF, Police, Army, CRPF in the lead, they could have write only "Indian security force". And shelling by Indian army is issue of other region like Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir. This article is only about Jammu and Kashmir and Indian army don't do shelling in Jammu and Kashmir, they do kill people by shooting which is already mentioned. --Human3015 09:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- To put it in the lead, you need to find a reliable source that labels them as human rights violations. Without that, you can't put it in the lead. Regarding the second issue, Indian Army don't do shelling? I suppose Mar4d can produces sources for that. If there are two sides to an issue, both should be mentioned. They can be mentioned in all articles where they are relevant. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, There is not a single source where Indian army killed civilians of Indian administered Kashmir by Shelling, Mar4d will provide sources where Indian army killed civilians by shelling in Pak administered Kashmir, but this article is about Indian administered Kashmir. We have already written about killings of Kashmiri civilians by Indian army via encounters and other routes.--Human3015 09:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, so should we mention human rights abuses by Pakistan army in Pak administered Kashmir in this article because mentioning only about Indian army would amount to ascribing more guilt than warranted. --Human3015 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, those two are unrelated. But shelling across the border by the two sides are related by a tit-for-tat strategy. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think that Kautilya3 is correct if he is trying to make way for both kinds of contents. So Kautilya3, when you are going to make your edits? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- No, those two are unrelated. But shelling across the border by the two sides are related by a tit-for-tat strategy. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3:, what about making section on Pakistan army as earlier decided? --Human3015 12:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 and OccultZone:, Just check out recent section created by me. I wrote about both direct and indirect involvement of Pakistan in "human rights violations". We have already written about militants but we should also write who is behind those militants. Various protests in Kashmir leads to violence and killings but we should write who is behind inciting these protests intentionally to increase violence in Kashmir so that international bodies focus on Kashmir isssue. And also wrote about ceasefire violations as discussed.--Human3015 13:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- In agreement with Kautilya, both sides need to be mentioned per WP:NPOV. If I have time, I will make edits in that regard. Also, mentioning ceasefire violations in the lead right in the third sentence is POV and lending WP:UNDUE weight to the issue in my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"Role of Pakistan"
This heading is contrary to the section being added where it is all claims even as per the text that is being added. The heading stating a factual role is highly POV to start with. Do not revert claiming the content is sourced because I did not object on OR, you've to address the matter being disputed... NPOV. Furthermore, you're now on 3RR after reverting two users - do not copy the same warning over to me as I've warned you when you reached 3 reverts. I'm hardly a part of any editwar on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- TopGun, thanks for discussing on talk. Read above discussion, "killing humans" is taken as criterion for "Human rights abuse". I also added reports of Human rights watch which accuse Pakistan for supporting abusive militants in Kashmir. They also explained role of Pakistan. --Human3015 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The article still has unresolved issues from the last discussion, especially those pertaining to neutrality. Everyone above agreed that to maintain balance, sources from both sides should be used. Human3015 has made more one-sided edits after that discussion, with no balance or alternative points of view presented. The lead hasn't been fixed either, where it was agreed that it's not only the Pakistani army doing the shelling on the border. I don't think we can proceed forward until Human3015 lets the article be neutralised for WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)