Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
OK, here we go with some sample statements : |
OK, here we go with some sample statements : |
||
a) |
a) Statement : "Crimes by militants are said to be incomparable with the larger scale abuse by Indian state forces". |
||
Sources such as Oxford Islamic Studies online may not necessarily be unbiased. These sites provide only the Muslim view point - as they do in this case. Hence the details using this as a reference should go. |
|||
b) Reference 8 : Statement "while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above 50,000" |
b) Reference 8 : Statement "while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above 50,000" |
Revision as of 08:58, 30 November 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Error: The code letter IP
for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.
Biased, one sided Propaganda material
Too many articles on this topic...Here's one more similar sounding article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_abuses_in_Kashmir
This article sounds like a propaganda material with multiple , one-sided arguments written by someone who is/are blatantly anti India & anti- Indian armed forces. Sweeping generalisations such as :
- Crimes by militants are said to be incomparable with the larger scale abuse by Indian state forces. {
- while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above …. {What Freedom??? There's no freedom movement in Kashmir , just a terrorist movement} - Scholars state that India has committed a genocide of Kashmiri Muslims to subdue their revolt. { Really? Which Scholars???)
…..and many more. The entire article needs to be rewritten Vivekaul (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul
- I believe everything is sourced to pretty good sources. Check them, bring up any specific issues you find. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I've already mentioned the areas of disagreement above> Phrases like "Scholars state that India has committed a genocide of Kashmiri Muslims to subdue their revolt" are totally biased, unsubstantiated & unproven. There's no credible proof of any such thing. The entire article is full of such generalisations & half-truth. This article lacks neutrality. Vivekaul (talk) 07:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul
- That is not the way to raise an objection. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has no value on Wikipedia. Objections have to be based on WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV. Are the statements a fair representation of what the sources say? Are the sources of good enough quality? Do they represent a consensus view or a narrow section of opinion?
- I have looked at the statement you mention above, and that does come as a surprise. Its first source is a Pakistan Horizons article, which is not of good quality and very likely a WP:PRIMARY source. The second one seems legit, but may not be very representative. I would support toning down this statement to something that has wider consensus among the scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk) One-sided, declarative statements such as "Scholars believe...." ; "the use of force by army is disproportional to the force by militant groups...." and many more sound like propaganda by Pakistani media. It does not behove a neutral site like Wikipedia. If at all this viewpoint has to be mentioned, the counter viewpoint from Indian sources too should be mentioned. The entire article is full of such statements. Even the term 'massacre' has been liberally used. Allegations cannot be made to sound like facts. Vivekaul (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul
- Yeah, I get that. So, what do you propose to do about it? You can't simply go and delete whatever you feel like. It needs to be justified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I’ve removed a few lines from a long write up and added words such as ‘as alleged’ and ‘allegations of ‘ etc. I provided the justification for these actions. What additional justification is required ? I am happy to do that. In collaborative editing if I remove a few biased lines or neutralize a few lop-sided arguments, I am not sure if I understand why that’s unacceptable. After all the person / persons who wrote all this were also allowed to write it in the first place. Vivekaul (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul
- They wrote it using reliable sources. If they misrepresented the sources, then you are free to amend them and state that you are editing it "as per source" in your edit summary. If you just think something is biased, you need to raise it here first and achieve WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, here we go with some sample statements :
a) Statement : "Crimes by militants are said to be incomparable with the larger scale abuse by Indian state forces". Sources such as Oxford Islamic Studies online may not necessarily be unbiased. These sites provide only the Muslim view point - as they do in this case. Hence the details using this as a reference should go.
b) Reference 8 : Statement "while the official figures from Indian sources state the estimates of number of civilians killed due to the pro-freedom movement are above 50,000" At no point in the document has this movement been termed as pro-freedom, so calling it a pro-freedom movement is totally wrong & a figment of the imagination of the writer of this sentence. At the best it can be termed as "pro-Pakistan militant movement"
c) Statement : "civilians allegedly mostly killed by Indian Armed Forces"...again a statement with no references. It should be changed to "civilians allegedly mostly killed by Indian Armed Forces and the militant groups.
d) reference 23 "Militant violence led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation front against 219 pandits according Jammu and Kashmir government source" is a deliberately mischievous statement which should be neutralised to : Killings resulting in the murder of 219 Pandit led by the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front ( killed between 1989 till 2010)
e) Reference 28 : link missing. Looks like a factually incorrect statement f) Reference 29 : Wrong statement "Human Rights groups have also accused the Indian security forces of using child soldiers" the link provided mentions "Since there is no systematic birth registration in some rural areas it is sometimes difficult to prove one's real age. Therefore it is possible for children to be recruited into defence and paramilitary forces"
I could go on & on... The entire article is written with a clear anti-India bias. Unsubstantiated statements, half truths & twisted phrases are used to build a biased narrative. The entire article has to be rewritten Vivekaul (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul
Biased, one sided Propaganda material
Good part of this article has on sided propaganda with declarative statements with do not represent NPOV.
I made some changes by removing the one-sided opinionated statements, however, it was reverted by someone called Kautaliya3 stating that we need consensus for such edits Vivekaul (talk) 05:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Vivekaul