This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Friends ! in compliance with WP policies, i want a dispute resolution by some neutral WP admin. It all started when i first time read this article i found the following wording in the lead paras;
"However, elections held in 2014 saw highest voters turnout in 25 years of history in Kashmir.European Union also welcomed elections, called it "free and fair" and congratulated India for its democratic system.The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.
It looked out of place in the lead because this election dealt only 45% land area of kashmir state which is disputed between india, Pakistan and China. It also looked pro india because it ignored wining pro india chief minister and wining party head comments giving credit to Pakistan and separatists for allowing elections in the state. so i inserted it with indian source reference as follows.
However, elected Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed said, "If God forbid the Hurriyat and the militants tried to disrupt the elections these would not have been as participative as they had been. They (Pakistan) also allowed these elections to take place." Ruling Party president Mehbooba Mufti also defended Mufti's remarks.
Then what happened could be seen in detail on page history. Different tactics were used to remove these lines. My question to all my friends is "Are we good faith neutral WP community or "Are we like fraud lawyers who manipulate rules/law to achieve their goals. Might is right Or right is right ? Thanks. 39.47.121.0 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
First of all, the lead is a quick summary of the article, highlighting the important ideas. There was already too much detail regarding the 2014 election, and you were adding a lot more, verbatim quotes from news reports. In general, you should add material to the article and then summarize it in the lead if it is sufficiently important. Other editors should agree with your judgement about the importance and, if they don't agree, you should discuss it on the talk page.
I have now condensed the lead, while keeping your citation. Please feel free to add more discussion in the body. Please keep in mind however that this is an article about the Kashmir conflict, not an article on the 2014 election. There is a separate article for that. If you really want to do service to Kashmiris, consider creating similar articles on elections in Azad Kashmir - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, detail should be added to the separate article as it does not cover 70 years of history. But mention of Pakistan is required too. Faizan (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, No need to add "separatists does not tried to disrupt elections", because there are numerous sources where separatist hurriyat leaders appealed to boycott elections. There is difference between "separatists" and "militants". Separatists are more like political activist which often pelts stones but does not categorise as militants and they have done their best to appeal people regarding boycott of recent elections and also they appealed shut down on various elections days. So word "separatist" should not be included in lead stating that they didn't disrupted election. But "militants" are those who use arms and do terror attack, though there was no such major terror incidence during elections still we can't say that its because of Pakistan was not willing to do any attack or they could not do it because of strong security during elections. Still mufti thanked Pakistan for that, he thanked militants. There are clear cut evidences that political separatists tried to disrupt the elections.--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 07:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not being "over the top neutral." The IP made a good argument and convinced me that this is an important part of the "Kashmir conflict" as it exists today, and so it should be highlighted. Pakistanis want credit for not disrupting elections in the neighbouring country. Dubious honour though it is, they should get it. That is part of the conflict. - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, its ok if Pakistan wants credit, but does Mufti is reliable source to give credit to Pakistan for smooth conduct of elections and writing it in lead? Give me one more independent source other than Mufti's statement giving credit to Pakistan. As one user said, Mufti's this statement can be written in Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 not in lead of parent article of Kashmir conflict. Election commission of India, EU, UN officials,US officials congratulated India for smooth conduct of elections, who congratulated Pakistan? Mufti's statement came after his alliance with Hindu nationalist party BJP and he just wanted to show his voters that his ideology is not same like BJP and he is "Pro-Pakistani". So its just politically motivated statement. And we are writing it in lead of parent article. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 07:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the views of Mufti, the elected Chief Minister, can be stated with inline attribution for the current affairs of which he had direct knowledge. (This is different from Narendra Modi claiming to have known what "every Indian" thought when he was 21 years old.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Doesn't matter what Mufti says: You like the statement of that IP then add it to Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014. You very well know terrorists and separatists will always try their level best to disrupt elections; but they were not successful as BSF, CRPF and Indian Army did their best to stop Pakistani terrorists from entering Kashmir. Now in a similar situation, are you going to add these following reliable references in the wiki page of Taj Mahal?
Read the above links and add them to Taj Mahal if bogus claims by politicians(without any evidence) is so important for you.
Mufti was lying and so are these people.Cosmic Emperor 09:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
CosmicEmperor I do not agree with you statement against Kautilya3 for him showing neutrality.As far what i understand WP policies such instructions to others may disqualify anyone from editing WP because WP has high ethic standards and great reputation.
I agree with Faizan and Kautilya3 and feel that wining CM's statement who represent the state where elections were held is very important in this context. I also agree with Kautilya3 view that lead should short so I propose removal of European union and European parliament statements on following grounds
1. In the presence of European union note why to put extras like European parliament note or EU any other administrative unit/ department note.
2. Election had improved turnout as per one party (India) which was never denied by other party (Pakistan or Separatist) so there is no need for certificate service from European Union because no party dis agreed to this statement.
3. As far European Union certificate of democracy to india is concerned that is not relevant in this artical.
4. European Union is neutral but it is not Pakistan or Pro pakistan separatist it is wining pro india CM by his own self is denying EU. so rival credit by default nullifies EU allegations.
So in order to shorten lead the whole para should be read like this.
" Elections held in 2014 saw highest voter turnout in the last 25 years, However, Credit to separatist leaders and Pakistan for the smooth conduct of the assembly election was given by elected Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed which was defended by Ruling Party leader Mehbooba mufti.
Question is, who are you?Cosmic Emperor 12:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
115.186.146.225, importance is not attached to the sources and their views, but rather to the information that is stated. The fact that the elections were found to be free and fair is important. The fact that the voter turnout was good is important. And, the fact that the separatists didn't cause disruption is important. It doesn't matter to me who said these things as long as they are reliable enough to be cited. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
115.186.146.225 agreed 100% sir; CosmicEmperor better try playing video games; Kautilya3 good thought friend but there are so many things which are important but we can not write a movie in the lead; it should be brisk; As Sir 115.186.146.225 stated every one agreed that turnover improved so no need to add extra qualifier certificates on fairness or greatness of Indian democratic system by a regional economic depression hit union. Certificates are only pasted when confidence level of propagator is weak or his position is dubious in world eyes so he wants to hide truth with lipstick touch ups or their are different contradictory claims. On a serious note turnover was good and winner telling the reason is the shortest lead entry. More reliable the sources less dubious WP insertions will be specially on sensitive issues. Agree on para from sir (115.186.146.225) 39.47.50.14 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. Elections being free and fair is important, which is why the EU people mentioned it. I think the due weightage in the last paragraph is quite fine. In a few months, we will get scholarly articles covering the election, when we can update the write-up based on them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 no need for you saying sorry because that is your opinion about what is important for you. But here we are discussing what should be in the lead. What if against european union certificate some one put Pakistan China and 56 countries OIC members declaring elections not a substitute of plebiscite giving kashmiries right of self determination. Therefore these EU certification for your kind satisfaction should be only in election 2014 separate article. Lead should be crisp as you earlier pointed out and should be stating turnover was good and winner telling the reason. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes sobia naz (39.47.50.14). Additionally Current statement in the lead " elections held in 2014 saw highest voter turnout in the last 25 years" is strange and just like Deceptive marketing tactic we usually face around the world where advertiser claims best or highest in this or that (with only favorable comparisons) which is a malpractice and is tried to be forcefully denied by regulatory authorities. Please see relevant wikipedia article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising. In election under discussion Turn out was lowest compare to election in other indian states even less then azad kashmir and gilgit baltistan, interestingly no one highlighted that. After detailed thinking and edit history pattern I feel this page is being controlled by few indian editors so all our Talk page consensus efforts will be denied by hook or crook. see current lead statment about election 2014 as example. I think if we were denied neutral consensus we have to consult arbitration committee. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
115.186.146.225, you made a good argument at the top, which I took into account. However, now, you are POV pushing. Do you have a reliable source that questions the statement that the election turnout was the highest in 25 years, or is it your own original research? - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Any one can see how POV push had been in edit history. Deceptive marketing like tactics and misuse of WP policies will induce me to refer to arbitration committee who will be in better position to judge with nuetral mind. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear IPs, election turnout was highest since 1989 (the year when armed insurgency started in Kashmir). What advertising you are seeing in it? If you have some problem with content then try to resolve it here on talk page, later you can also go to dispute resolution board. Arbitration is last board to apply and this so obvious information don't even deserve long discussion on this talk page itself. You have to keep your nationalist and personal thoughts out of Wikipedia while editing. Don't waste time of community for such minor issues. Inclusion of remarks of EU and voters % are obvious facts and it should be included. You can challenge any un-sourced and non-relevant content but here it is highly sourced and relevant. Thank you.--Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 09:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Calm down Human3015 WP is not a battle ground. We are community so accept others insertions which are highly sourced and relevant. Do not worry Arbitration will definitely find extensive history of aggressive edit-warring and attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground along national lines in case of all including Kautilya3Human3015 and CosmicEmperor. Please also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users115.186.146.225 (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Reminder that this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Also, any edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise, [1] are highly discouraged. --NeilNtalk to me 11:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks sir NeilN for your quick guidance to all of us. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Very good. Now, you need to provide a reliable source that questions the highest voter turnout statement or withdraw the accusation that it is "false advertising." - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3 I think 115.186.146.225 thanked NeilN for his warning for edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring; As far as reliable source is concerned; i already gave that from indian famous news paper "THE HINDU" plus as desired by you, lead should be short so lead should only include " Elections held in 2014 saw better voter turnout since 1989, However, Credit to separatist leaders and Pakistan for the smooth conduct of the assembly election was given by elected Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Muhammad Sayeed which was defended by Ruling Party leader Mehbooba mufti." I have modified a bit the version proposed by 115.186.146.225 at 12:11, 11 June 2015; 39.47.50.14 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
first of all both of you Ips stop tagging me, which gives a red notification. And you 39.47..... tried to facebook connect with 115.186........ I am pretty sure you people are someone's sock. But I don't have any energy left to investigate.Cosmic Emperor 17:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
yes i gave a message to IP 115.186.146.225 about my facebook account so what socializing on Face book is not i crime. you can also add me @ "Sobia Naz" ; but offwiki collaboration with intent to target other users is a crime so keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; and after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@39.47.50.14: This is the third time you pinged me with a ridiculous accusation. If you do this again, I will report it to the administrators for harassment. Human3015, CosmicEmperor and I don't "support" each other. We have overlapping interests, and we agree at some places and disagree at others. Whatever communications we have with each other are public. All three of us agree on one point at this time, viz. that you and the other IP are POV-pushing and you are not here to build Wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 instead of replying to your threatening and harassing remarks; Respecting WP gratitude i leave this investigation on administrators; I will definitely avail arbitration committee if misuse of editing rights on this article or other indo pak articles are not stopped; I am confident about WP arbitration committee fairness; Still we have time to refine our selves free from ethnic or religious or national mindsets of partiality; If we analyse edit history of this page or other indop pak page in last two year following things are evident;
1. Whenever some one edit with pro kashmiri/pakistani insertion. One of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Unsourced"
2. If he provides source then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Not a reliable source"
3. If he provides reliable source then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "Not a Newspaper"
4. If he re-edits to comply with WP not a news paper then one of indian editor (from group) like you deletes that with comments "No Concensus take to talk page"
5. In the mean while on the basis of three revert rule your group make page protected.
6. If he tries talk page consensus you all group editors converge and deny consensus.
7. Then you provoke that person in to heat of the moment and get him banned.
Brothers such people in real life are called "FRAUD" and CHEATERS". I hope you guys are not such insults so let the investigation begin from some good human because if there is evil in the world then there is some great humans as well. In the end i say sorry if my words hurt some one but let us be fair on WP RESPECTS39.47.50.14 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
There are dozens of Indian/Pakistani editors who do the same thing. But you pointed out only your personal choice. So are you neutral?Cosmic Emperor 13:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, the steps you mention are the normal process of learning to be a Wikipedian. But your problem is in the very first point. You are trying to be pro-somebody or other, whereas we try our best to be pro-truth. We try to find the truth by looking at a wide range of reliable scholarly sources and represent those view points. I would welcome you to register as a regular user and become a good Wikipedian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
After listening to the arguments from all sides, Steven Zhang made the following recommendations:
OK, I'll start with a few comments. One, like all of you, I'm just a volunteer here on Wikipedia. While I have been doing dispute resolution for many years, I don't have any special authority to make a decision. That said, I would hope that as an uninvoled editor in this matter, that my opinion on the matter would be considered.
After reviewing the two proposed versions of the content, I believe the one that is currently in the article is the one that complies with Wikipedia policy more than the other, specifically in this case the one about undue weight. The main difference between the two apart from some wording differences is that one mentions a comment made by the European Union and the other mentions a comment made by the Chief Minister of the state Mufti Muhammad Sayeed.
Part of me wonders why the comments made by the European Union need to be in the article, since references 6 and 7 are just website re-publishing the press release by one member of the EU Parliament (though it does state it is on behalf of the EU Parliament, it is a press release). I don't feel in an article of this size, it needs to be included.
Likewise, the reference given from Mufti Sayeed should not be included in the article per undue weight. The reference speaks about how the daughter of Sayeed defends his comments, which as per the reference is disagreed with by many. It appears to be the opinion of him only - and to include such a quote in the article would be giving the opinion of one person far more weight than it deserves.
I'd go for simplicity here. Cut it down the middle. All parties have quoted the same references with regards to the voter turnout at the election. From the references I've read (namely references 1,2, and 4 in the current article text) the sources state that this election had the highest voter turnout in 25 years. So simply state that. I see no need to mention anything else.
There are currently two sections that mention this. The lede section, which currently has four paragraphs. Easy fix. Delete paragraph four in it's entirety, and add this text instead to the end of paragraph three, citing references 1, 2, and 4 I have previously referred to - "However, elections held in 2014 registered the highest voter turnout for the state in 25 years."
The other section (titled "2014 Jammu and Kashmir Elections"), the first part which states: "The Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election, 2014 was held in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in five phases from November 25 to December 20, 2014. Despite repeated boycott calls by separarist Hurriyat leaders,[260] elections recorded highest voters turnout in last 25 years, that is more than 65% which is more than usual voting percentage in other states of India."
The first sentence is fine. The second sentence, remove "repeated" - you have one reference and the word repeated isn't mentioned there at all - it's called. the word separatist is fine - references describe them as such. Hurriyat isn't mentioned in that article, and one should not have to look at a Wikipedia article, then a reference, then a google search of someone mentioned there to find an affiliation. I'd say just go with "despite calls to boycott the election by separatists[...]. Part of the sentence after the comma is fine, but go with "[...] elections recorded the highest voter turnout in 25 years".
Lastly, after the table of voter turnout, delete the entire passage about the EU (namely "The European Parliament, on the behalf of European Union, welcomed the smooth conduct of the State Legislative Elections in the Jammu and Kashmir.[24] The EU in its message said that, "The high voter turnout figure proves that democracy is firmly rooted in India. The EU would like to congratulate India and its democratic system for conduct of fair elections, unmarred by violence, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir".[24][23][25] The European Parliament also takes cognizance of the fact that a large number of Kashmiri voters turned out despite calls for the boycott of elections by certain separatist forces.[23])
Lastly, delete this reference and all mentions of it - it adds no value to the text it cites as it is already supported by other references which actually state what is in the article text - this one does not.
This is my opinion on the matter - I hope you will take time to review it. I would like responses to the above to be no more than 200 words, solely referring to the content of my comments and not referring to each other in any way, shape or form. It's late in Australia here so I will review comments in the morning. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 13:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
After further argumentation from the disputants, he concluded:
Volunteer comment - I'm closing this dispute as failed, for a few reasons. The main reason is that my assessment of the dispute is that there are involved editors that may have personal opinions here which are not able to be reconciled with Wikipedia policy, and thus an attempt to conduct dispute resolution may be futile. I would strongly recommend the proposals I suggested be implemented, with further community input sought on the alternatives for inclusion, but for now, this discussion is over. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 04:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be a shame not to implement the considered opinion of the moderator. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
RFC
DRN on election 2014 para in the lead failed but Modrator Steven Zhang recomended that relevant sections be stripped down to a barebones fact only version as he've suggested before wider community input through perhaps RFC is sought.
RFC from IP 39.47.11 as follows
"Participation in national election was low as compare to all Indian states [1] but in state election highest since disputed elections of 1989 [2][3] for which Chief minister gave credit to Pakistan and separatist [4][5] which was criticized by Bhartia Janta Party and opposition parties in national assembly but he stood by his words [6] and her party chairman also defended his comments [7] "
Find below table of contrasting positions of each party fully covered in proposed compromise
Issue
Want included with some conditionility
Not included
National election 2014 in article
IP 115.... ,Kautaliya3 ,IP 39.... ,Thomas.W
Human3015, Shrikanthv
State election 2014 in article
Human3015,Kautaliya3,Thomas.W
IP 115... , IP 39....,Shrikanthv
Refrence of 25 years highest
Human3015,Kautaliya3,Thomas.W
IP 115... , IP 39....,Shrikanthv
CM statement
IP 115.... ,Kautaliya3, IP 39...., Faizan,Thomas.W
In recent edits IP deleted EU's version from the lead calling it WP:UNDUE and saying that all parties were agree on deleting EU's comment on DRN. But all parties were agree only if IPs also agree that Mufti's statement is also WP:UNDUE. But IP who deleted EU's version same IP is doing RfC for Mufti's version and demanding support for it calling it as "version that satisfy everyone". So there is chance of his version may get accepted because he still didn't closed Mufti's issue and demanding support for his version. So I'm restoring pre-dispute version untill this Mufti's issue get solved, because if in any case Mufti's statement get into lead then with same logic EU's statement should also be there. So i;m restoring pre-dispute version untill IPs also accepts that Mufti's statement is WP:UNDUE. We were agree on deleting EU's statement only if Mufti's statement should also not be included, but here RfC is going on for that. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
WP Un due or what ever other reasons It is as per DRN modrator steve decision while he concluded DRN . Please refer to last concluding para reproduced as follows " I'm closing this dispute as failed, for a few reasons. The main reason is that my assessment of the dispute is that there are involved editors that may have personal opinions here which are not able to be reconciled with Wikipedia policy, and thus an attempt to conduct dispute resolution may be futile. I would strongly recommend the proposals I suggested be implemented (proposals included deleting EU), with further community input sought on the alternatives for inclusion, but for now, this discussion is over." tagging "Closed due to irreconcilable differences between parties. I also believe there are some real-world beliefs here that are getting in the way of DR. I recommend the relevant sections be stripped down to a barebones, fact only version as I've suggested before wider community input (through perhaps an RFC is sought)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The latest version, as made by 115.186.146.225, looks like a good compromise, keeping the sources and giving the opinion of the European Union due weight. Thomas.W talk 13:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Appears clearly socks pushing again POV Shrikanthv (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
If the sources and every mention of EU's thoughts about the election had been removed it would have been POV-pushing, but that's not what has happened here, since both the sources and EU's opinion are still in the article. All articles about contentious subjects require a bit of giving on both sides of the conflict, but in this discussion I so far see some giving only on the Pakistani side of the demarcation line. Thomas.W talk 13:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Shrikanthv you alleging others as socks. I can call you sock of Human3015 keeping in view article history but I will not because I know on WP untill you proof anyone sock you can not call others sock. So stop blaming others as sock. I just complied with modrator recommendations which I promised to comply with during DRN plus he allowed us RFC so i am using that for other issues like inclusion of mufti statement or national election. You all should respect Modrator's recommendation no matter you agree or not. 115.186.146.225 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Calm down, both of you, we're not going to have any accusations about socking here, from either side. Thomas.W talk 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
IPs are very selective in collecting facts, they are giving reference of Moderator Steve for everything but they are not puting forward fact that Mufti's version is also completely rejected by him. --Human3015 knock knock • 13:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh my dear friend human3015 read steve closure statement again, he has not rejected inclusion of mufti, he has allowed RFC for unresolved issues including Mufti statement and low participation in national election. I can understand the pain of nationalist editors who once upon a time were controlling all diputed articles of WP but today see the diffrence. Thanks to all WP admins including steve they are very professional and nuetral and I respect them. Happy editing but do not forget to remain nuetral Human3015. 39.47.234.154 (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I rejected the inclusion of Sayeed multiple times, you just refused to acknowledge that and accepted my undue reasoning for a comment by a member of the EU, but not for the other one (the removal of Sayeed's comment). As I stated, both should be thrown out. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 03:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Steve Although We had problems understanding your informal aussie english slangs (on english WP where formal british english is used) still it is quite clear that yor failed to reslove the dispute. For unresolved matters you recommended RFC. Un resolved matters included Mufti statement and low participation in national election. My tiny knowledge of DRN says that Dispute resolver should not act like a party to dispute. Any ways Cheers 39.47.101.145 (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see where in DRN I used language that was so unclear that my perspective or views could have been so confused that it was assumed that I never rejected the issue of Sayeed's statement as per what you previously said. I disagree that the issue of the statement is unresolved - it is not necessary for all (or in fact, any of) the parties to agree on a matter for it to be resolved if Wikipedia policy is clear, a localised consensus cannot override a site wide policy. In this situation, the policy that applies is WP:UNDUE, specifically this passage - "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, [...]. In this situation, the opinion of Sayeed is in the vastly limited minority, references quoted point to their opinion being widely disparaged and rejected, so it does not belong on Wikipedia. I'm still an uninvolved editor as I have no stake in this article other than ensuring that Wikipedia's core principles are held to, and often do dispute resolution outside of DRN. Seeing that the edit warring has continued once the DRN was closed I feel it necessary to keep an eye on this talk page, and request the assistance of administrators to keep this conflict under control as needed. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 06:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Steve man I am astonished that you calling un due, a statement from a person ruling 13 million population. Your austrailia popultion is near close so can you call austrailian prime minister statement UN DUE ? Oh god 39.47.101.145 (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Let it go IPs, you are fighting on this issue since 1.5 months and its your big success that you succeed to remove EU's statement from lead. Now don't expect more, EU's statement got removed only because everybody agreed on it without thinking about their "national agenda". As a Wikipedia editor you should be neutral, you should also accept fact that Mufti Sayeed's statement is WP:UNDUE. And he is not leader of 13 million, his party got just 28 seats out 87, not even got simple majority of 44. He is not paramount leader of Kashmir. You should wait till 2020 elections, if his party gets 70+ seats out 87 then we will think about adding your version. But be patient. Now please close this issue, you better try User talk:Jimbo Wales, no one will accept your version here. --Human3015 knock knock • 12:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@39.47, certainly would call a statement from anyone of position undue if it was widely disagreed with, whether it was Mufti, Tony Abbott or Barack Obama. On that topic, it has been requested to add mention of the national election with 50% voter turnout, stating that (comment from IP 115 - "Crux of this conflict is India says kashmiri people participate in Indian national election hence they are with india while Pakistan/ Separatists rejects election as an alternative to United states granted right of self determination to kashmiris") - basically stating that with only 50% of turnout it's evidence that Kashmiri people do not want to be a part of India - this is not supported by the reference at all and is pure speculation (again, not supported by Wikipedia policy) and pushes a certain POV. And for more evidence, see Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections - in the 1996 and 2000 elections, voter turnout was very close to 50%, and in the 2012 election, just 55%. Does this mean the other 45% does not want to be part of the US? No, because it's a number only. Voting is not compulsory in many countries and one cannot tie a low turnout to a particular reason, unless there is documented evidence and references as to the reason (for example, if there was an election held and an army force barricaded all roads to a polling booth in a city, we could cite this as a cause for low turnout in that city, because there is clear, documented, sourced evidence of the cause. Here, it's pure speculation and should not be included.) StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 15:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Human 3015 In democratic system worldwide chief minister from a state is head of state (with a population of 13 million) his statement is important in context of state elections he won and let us see how RFC goes. We already know your POV so relax man and edit some other WP articles why you getting tense. It is not a battle ground so let RFC get right decision from other users. 39.47.101.145 (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
What you have is not a proper RfC. Nobody has commented on it, and nobody is likely to. To do it right, you need to follow the procedure of WP:RfC. Secondly, Steven Zhang has pointed out that an RfC cannot override a policy issue. Basically, he holds that the Mufti statement does not represent a consensus of reliable sources. It is an isolated opinion. So it is WP:UNDUE. A local consensus (as decided by an RfC) cannot override a global policy issue. So I don't think an RfC can make difference to the situation. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
These Ips must be blocked for personal attacks.SilverSamurai 14:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Here comes a new suspected indian sock puppet Silver Samurai who joined English Wikipedia on 28 June 2015 and jumped staight to this talk page and requesting me to be blocked. His agressive behavour is quite similer to Human3015. Should not me file an SPI ?
Kautilya3 Had we added "Election turnover was highest due to Pakistan or Sepratists" only then consensus of reliable sources would have been required. BUT here we are simply quoting CM words with reliable sources from top indian news paper Times of India and Hindu so it perfectly as per WP policies. In democratic system worldwide, Chief minister from a state is head of state (representing population of 13 million). He is not a common man. His statement is important in context of state elections he won and the election we are talking about. Kautilya3 you already agreed to inclusion of mufti statement even after Steve comments on DRN. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=669452451&oldid=669451671 . If we read it you said As for the Mufti statement, the maximum that I am willing to go is to say that he credited the separtists for not disrupting the elections. I want no mention of Pakistan . This reflects your anti Pakistan bad faith. So I suggest you that instead of representing Steve and WP policies you must read WP core policy of Nuetrality and follow. 39.47.101.145 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is my personal opinion that there is no harm in including the Mufti's statement as I indicated. However, I don't write Wikipedia based on my opinions. I write it based on sources and Wikipedia policies. So when Steven Zhang cites policy and he is right about it, I go along with it. So should you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The next time I see a statement along the lines of "pro-indian, anti-pakistan" or anything else directed at other editors, it will be me that will seeking blocks for disruptive editing - you have been asked and warned numerous times to stop. Undue weight is a subsection of neutrality, so I don't understand why you're citing neutrality (as I'm basically citing it already). StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 17:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@IPs, as you said you have some problem with Australian English, then I will try to tell you in Indian/Pakistani English. Steve want to say that, even if 100 people supports IP's version of adding Mufti's statement still it can't be included in article as per Wikipedia policy WP:UNDUE. This policy says that we can't add minority opinion in the article. It means, if tomorrow Mufti Sayeed says "In my Kashmir Sun rises from West" then we can't write it in article of Jammu and Kashmir that in Kashmir Sun rises from West, though he is leader of Kashmir still we can't add it unless it is supported by other majority independent sources. If he says Sun rises from West then we don't accept it calling it as his personal opinion, same way he is giving credit to Pakistan and separatist militants for smooth conduct of Elections is his personal opinion, no need to take it so seriously. --Human3015 knock knock • 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Human 3015 i think you have 100 times repeated your POV and ten times said that you will not waste time and comment here agian. But you agian drop in with repeat comments.
Having said it let us finish blame game and taking it too personal. WP is not a battle ground and let us seek opinion of thousand of other valuable WP editors and admins on RFC. I will not comment in this section anymore because i dont see it going any where.I will focus on RFC.39.47.101.145 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
And this comment by the Prime Minister of Australia was [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-one-wind-turbine-tony-abbott-has-ever-seen-up-close-was-funded-by-the-howard-government-20150612-ghmfno.html quoted in a top Australian newspaper, about Wind farms - "Now, up close, they are ugly, they are noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts which I will leave to the scientists to study". And there are 13 other news sites that report the same thing as well (broken link to search results removed, search Google News for "tony abbott wind farm). But is his opinion in the article Wind power in Australia? No, of course it isn't. The fact that a politician said something and the fact that it was reported by multiple news sites does not mean their point of view is more important. And if I added to the lede of the article "Prime minister Abbott described wind turbines as ugly and noisy" I'd be breaching WP:UNDUe - the view of Abbott has been widely criticised and it would be giving the opinion of one person more weight than it deserves. Identical situation here. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 21:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Mufti Mohammad Sayeed with Prime Minister of IndiaNarendra Modi after government formation in Jammu and Kashmir IPs I will give you one advice, you are thinking that here you are promoting "national agenda" by supporting Mufti's statement but you are completely wrong, Mufti's statement is very political and defamatory towards Pakistan. I will tell 2-3 angles of his statement and you will not find sources for it. Firstly he defamed Pakistan by keeping a republic nation in category of "militants", he gave credit to "Pakistan and militants". 2ndly he want to say that "no bomb blast happened during election" and credit goes to "Pakistan", means he is indirectly saying that Pakistan supports terrorism in Kashmir and peace in Kashmir is in hands of Pakistan. Instead of condemning such defamatory statement why you are supporting and want to publicize it?. 3rdly He want to give message that Pakistan has not done any efforts to disrupt the elections means Pakistan is happy with democratic process in Kashmir and don't want to disrupt it and it will decrease morale of separatists in Kashmir who wants Kashmir to be part of Pakistan. 4thly He want to show that his government has indirect support of Pakistan, so that no one will do insurgency against his government and he will do his work peacefully. And strangely all this is probably planned by BJP and PDP, so don't get trapped in such politics. You see the picture. I'm off now on this issue, will comment only if very necessary. --Human3015 knock knock • 19:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Human3015 i live in Pakistan but a kashmiri migrate from indian occupied kashmir Srinagar. My pro freedom family was tortured by indian army in 90,s. Lets not disscuss that. Just before state election all news papers in Pakistan were expressing in thier various articles that kashmiris should vote to avoid Hindu nationalist BJP. Reason was that BJP manifesto included removal of special status of state of Jammu and kashmir. If that speacial status of state was removed then Hindu migrants from any part of India can disturb the demography of muslim majiority state. I can provide refrences of those articles and manifesto of BJP. Mufti PDP was seen as better alternative to BJP whose manifesto (I can provide refrence) was retaining kashmir special statuis and removal of AFSPA ( Armed forces special powers act) to give state people relief from Human rights voilations from Indian army. See June 2015 report by Amnesty international of completion of 25 years of AFSPA here https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa20/1874/2015/en/ . That is why mufti quoted "Hurriyat and even people across the border have their assets here. If they had decided to do something, there would not have been such a large scale participation of people in the electoral process" and PDP chief said "This time there had been no door to door campaign by Hurriyat asking people to boycott assembly polls" - Steven Zhang yes views of a prime minister about a machine are Un due but views of ELECTED ELECTION WINNER about ELECTION are important and not Un due specially keeping in view my few lines above describing to Human3015 the whole background of PDP vs BJP manifesto (AFSPA vs special status) . 39.47.101.145 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
One cannot exclaim that a policy does not apply simply by stating "policy X does not apply" - it is the burden of the editor disputing the policy or application of said policy to show why it it does not apply. For undue weight to not apply here, the position of Sayeed would need to be one shared by the majority of those involved in the situation, which the references you've quoted do not show - it is a few newspapers quoting the same information, only supported by his daughter, from what I've seen. If you can show that a significant majority of others involved in the matter (the state election) have also supported his statement/point of view, then undue would not be an issue here. But until it is, you could state until you're blue in the face that as the prime minister (chief minister, same thing) everything he says about the election should be quoted, it won't change the policy. I'll also be asking other DR volunteers and uninvolved editors to weigh in here by creating a properly structured RFC that details the passages and references. StevenZhangHelp resolve disputes! 04:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@IP, I respect your sentiments, but lastly you accepted that you came here with some POV that "Indian army tortured your family and you left Kashmir and migrated to Pakistan", so you came here to take some revenge, though as a Human being my sympathy is with you if its true but you can't keep on asking for your undue edits just because you have some stakes in it. There is already a section in this article regarding Human rights abuse and also a separate article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir and we have also added human rights issues in lead of this article, so that is not issue here. Question is about undue statement about Mufti. You are saying Mufti is leader of 13 million people then what about statement by leader of 1.25 billion people PM of India Modi People of Jammu and Kashmir have rejected bullet for ballot: PM Narendra Modi and Modi was face of BJP in Kashmir election. One can give such "n" number of statements. --Human3015 knock knock • 04:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Human3015 i said no comments on my family so abstain. Mufti is state leader. Moodi is national leader and we are disscussing state elections. Steve I explained background in my last comment because when any ones applies WP policies he should have perfect back ground knowledge. Only then he can suitably apply WP policies. Un fortunatly your lack knowledge of regional context (since you are from austrailia) is hindering your good faith (which is respected by us). You used daughter but you forgot she is Chief of party (PDP) . So a party is endorsing his statement. That party is ruling party. Chief minister enjoys majoriity candidates suppourt in state assembly. No one moved motion to remove him from chief ministry after his statement favoring pakistan, even he strongly stood by his comments and his party head continuously supported him. I advise you to read minfestos of PDP and BJP to understand regional intersts of kashmiris across Jammu and kashmir (millions across indo pak borders) 39.47.101.145 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
@IP, If you have background and experience of this situation then I will suggest you to write a blog or OPEDs in local or national dailies or make a documentary. Wikipedia doesn't work on knowledge or experience of the Editor, Wikipedia simply work on reliable sources and relevant edits. Mufti's comment is not relevant here. You can add Mufti's comment in his own article Mufti Mohammad Sayeed in controversy section but not here in lead of this article. Now please close this issue. I think we should not reply to IP anymore, we have said everything that we can say, no one is supporting IP's version (though support doesn't matters for WP:UNDUE version). As this IP accepted he came here in mentality of revenge and he was blaming me for being "nationalist". I was supporter of EU's version but as soon as Steve explained me reality of EU's version I accepted it without any further debate on that or without any further annoyance. But IPs came here with some motive and they will not accept suggestion of any one of us, so better we should stop replying to IPs, we all have done everything. --Human3015 knock knock • 05:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Human3015 we have 100 times read your POV; This is 11th time you promised to not comment again & waste time here but you agian drop in with repeat comments. Having said it let us finish blame game and taking it too personal. WP is not a battle ground and let us seek opinion of thousand of other valuable WP editors and admins on RFC. I will not comment in this section anymore because i dont see it going any where.I will focus on RFC. 39.47.115.119 (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
39.47.115.119(talk·contribs·WHOIS), Thanks for sharing with us your interest in the issue. I would encourage you to use your interest to find enough reliable sources to support the views you would like to be included. To highlight Steven Zhang's guidance to you, If you can show that a significant majority of others involved in the matter (the state election) have also supported his statement/point of view, then undue would not be an issue here. So that is what you need to do as per Wikipedia policies. There this matter should end. But you are welcome to add discussion to the 2014 J&K Elections page to highlight the kind of issues that the Kashmiri electorate faced in this election. We would be very happy to support you in such efforts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Notes on current dispute
I fully protected this article a few days ago because of the edit warring. If edit warring resumes after protection expires, I will be looking at who has productively participated on the talk page and will probably hand out blocks per WP:ARBIP accordingly as long term full protection is not an option. A few comments to focus the discussion: This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. Editors might want to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature. Second, I noticed that PR Newswire is used as a source. This type of reference should be treated as a WP:SPS as it is a press release, not a independently written news story, and should be used very sparingly. I see no reason why it should be used in this article. If editors wish to open a proper RFC and need help, please let me know. --NeilNtalk to me 00:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There haven't been any posts since mine. I take it the current version of the article is acceptable the disputants? --NeilNtalk to me 17:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There has been already complete discussion took place at WP:DRN. Those "news of the day" are already removed. PR Newswire is already removed from lead. Moreover, elections which comes after every 6 years in Jammu and Kashmir deserves to be in lead as it was "rigged" state elections of 1987 which started insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. As of now, there is "no dispute" over current version. IPs who were not agree on current version also stopped commenting on this talk page. So we can consider that they are not against current version now. Now only issue remains is when page will get unprotected that time IPs should not start edit war on resolved issue. --Human3015 knock knock • 18:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like the storm has died down. I am happy to implement the DRN guidance when the pp-dispute is lifted. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Though it will be harsh on IPs to make it semi, still I will welcome semi protection, because I really don't want to lose my time with un-necessary discussions with IPs on this issue anymore. I know IPs will not stop. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, it will be better if you do what you feel good instead of asking us. Because we are involved editors and IPs were "opposite" party, so if you ask our opinion regarding 'semi protection' then IPs will blame you that you are "biased" and "pro-Indian". So as a admin you do what you feel better. --Human3015 knock knock • 20:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The IPs can think what they wish. My concern is that the editors (registered or otherwise) who actually participated here and at the DRN don't start edit warring if protection is reduced. --NeilNtalk to me 20:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This article contains a lot of content especially in Indian view and Pakistan view which is WP:OR and source does not directly relate it with topic and seams to be Original research of the editors So we have to remove it because "No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies of Wikipedia. HIAS (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. If you find WP:OR, please tag it with the {{citation needed}} tag. If the content misrepresents the source you can use {{not in source}}. If it is blatantly wrong, you can remove it. But, this being a contentious subject, better to discuss it first. If there is a "Main article" link, you would need to check the main article for citations. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: Agree with Kautilya, you should discuss things on talk page before removing major content from the article. It is very controversial topic and is under discretionary sanctions. It has been experience with such kind of articles that some editors edit such article with specific POV which is not good for Wikipedia. To avoid unnecessary disputes, edit wars, page protection and blocks, it will be better to start issue at article's talk page first if your change is going to be major. Thank you. --Human3015TALK 10:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks for being the part of discussion,So let me explain one by one
In first paragraph about Two Nation Theory, the source does not relate the material with Kashmir conflict, its WP:OR of the editor, who is relating it with the topic. If the editor can present a reliable source which clearly says that Two Nation Theory is the cause of Kashmir conflict,I have no problem with that.
Second one is a Blog and not even close to WP:RS because anyone can create a blog or Private site and can add misleading contents. http://web.archive.org is private site and the content is not present on any other official site so it is WP:OR of editor per Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources which clearly states that "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research."
Third one is again dead links and the material is unrelated with Kashmir conflict, its WP:OR of the editor, who is relating it with the topic.
Regarding 1, I see a clear relationship established in the Redgrave article: "For India, the state--now divided by a "line of control"--is fully a part of the Indian union; with its 65-percent Muslim population, it stands as a symbolic rebuttal to the "two nation" theory that underlay the founding of Pakistan. Moreover, India asserts that Kashmir's inclusion in India serves as a guarantor of the secular state." I am not sure what you have checked.
Regarding 2, I am afraid you are wrong on several counts. A full citation for a Government of India web document has been given, and a convenience link has been provided for an archive. If you want to verify it, it is your responsibility to track down the source. If you are unable to find the source, you can raise an issue or request a copy from other editors. In no case can you remove the content calling it OR. Just by doing a simple search, I found the original on the MEA web site [3]. So, it doesn't seem to me that you have done an honest effort to find the source.
Regarding 3, again, dead links are not reason enough to claim that content is unsourced. It is true that the UN presentations on terrorism do not mention Kashmir. But there is enough sourced discussion in other parts of the article on terrorism in Kashmir including reports from the US, e.g., this statement: US intelligence analysts say Al-Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan-administered Kashmir are helping terrorists trained in Afghanistan to infiltrate Indian-administered Kashmir.[63] So you can't claim that the relationship is not established.
I also see another bullet point that you removed regarding human rights violations in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I presume that you have no argument to support its deletion.
So, on the whole, this was a poor effort at identifying WP:OR. Unfortunately, you haven't followed my recommendation for tagging content rather than deleting it. So, if you persist in this way, I will have to take the issue to the admins. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: I agree with you. See Two nation theory was basis of India Pakistan division. Pakistan was made by combining Muslim majiority areas and India is comprising of Hindu majiority areas. For States such as Kashmir, Hyderabad ,Junagadh and manavadar two factors (Religon and Accestion by ruler) were to be considered at the time of partition. Muslim majiority states Kashmir's raja accesed to india while Hindu Majiority Hyderabad, Junagadh and manavadar states declined India. Still India attacked Hyderabad, Junagadh and manavadar states on the grounds that majiority of population of these states in Hindu. How can now some one from India claim India a secular state. It is a Hindu state who want to occupy Muslim Kashmir. Original researchs to show India innocent while one million Indian forces keeping kashmiri people in a jail just like palestine is a misleading presentation of facts. Imnesty international Human rights commision reports show how thousand of children women and old/ young kashmiris were tortured and killed by calling them militant. There single mistake was that they are asking india to accept United nation resulution to give kashmiris right of self determination. I am sorry to be called a Human by watching modren world for the sake of patriotism killing 9 year old kashmiri child. SAD STATE. 39.47.75.200 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I want to apologize for my Previous edit ,actually i was confused by the statement "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research." mentioned on Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources, Dead links, Poorly sourced sites, and the Material which was a little bit different from the topic. Since i am a new editor so i expect suggestions from fellow editors. Thank you HIAS (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I look forward to seeing better editing from you in future. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Rongxing Guo source
@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara: I think this material [4] is WP:UNDUE. This is a book on a large number of border conflicts with a two-page summary on Jammu and Kashmir, with no sources given. We can't be sure of the author's depth of knowledge of the dispute. On the fact of it, there haven't been "many attempts" at resolving the Kashmir dispute. After the 1948 resolution, pretty much nothing happened. It is also not true that no "substantial progress" has been made. The Simla Agreement where the two countries agreed on a Line of Control, which is now considered "sacrosanct" internationally is substantial progress. Also, your page number is wrong. There is nothing Kashmir-related on p. 68. I can't find a mention of "UN charter" anywhere in the book. So I intend to delete these additions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:Here is the link for page number 68 and UN Charter is present here. HIAS (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. It turns out that I was looking at a different book which also had similar text. You can use our citation tool to generate full citations for Google books. Still, my argument of WP:UNDUE remains. There is no coverage of "many attempts" in the article and the "no progress" claim has been contradicted by the author himself when he mentioned the Simla Agreement later. So, I propose the deletion of that sentence. The UN charter is fine. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is complete text of Shimla agreement and UN Charter is mentioned in 1st and 5th point. While "for Progress" Wait, Let me search for alternate Sources . HIAS (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Removed about Progress . HIAS (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
In short, Pakistan holds
@Hitch Hicking Across Sahara:, this material [5] doesn't make sense. The bullet points begin with "In short, Pakistan holds that...". Your insertion is neither "in short" nor is it the voice of "Pakistan." It is just a private columnist who is not a reliable source any way. So this is no good. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will search for an alternate Source. HIAS (talk) 00:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
New additions
I made addition with multiple Indian and Pakistani sources for J & K high court decision . New additions by Kautilya and others have no cross verifiable nuetral sources. 39.32.191.139 (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
hi IP. Where did court said "Kashmir never merged with India"? It only says "Kashmir did not merge with India the way other princely states merged", and "it has special status and limited sovereignty under article 370 of Indian constitution". Actually Wikipedia is not news. There is no need of inclusion of this statement because court has said nothing new. Kashmir has special status and limited sovereignty is fact since Independence of India or since Indian constitution is established which has been already mentioned in article. But still we are including it in neutral manner the way court said. Nationalistic news papers can give headlines like "Kashmir High court says Kashmir never merged with India" and we can't do anything for that if they are doing it for their satisfaction. Court said "Kashmir did not merge with India like other princely states merged but it has limited sovereignty under article 370 of Indian constitution". --Human3015TALK 07:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"New additions by Kautilya and others have no cross-verifiable neutral sources" - Wikipedia sources are expected to be reliable not "neutral." See WP:BIASED. I am listing my sources here.[1][2][3][4] If you want to argue about their reliability, please do so. "Cross verification" is your problem. You can bring other sources if you wish and we can cross-compare them.
You should also note that the material you reinstated is unsourced. You cannot reinstate it. This article is under discretionary sanctions. Edit-warring here can get you blocked. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
^Copland, Ian (Feb 1991), "The Princely States, the Muslim League, and the Partition of India in 1947", The International History Review, 13 (1): 38–69, JSTOR40106322
Human you yourself added Newspaper source. where is court order link? please add that before deleting 5 sources added by me. Limited soverignity not exactly i.e. according to instrument of accestion Para 4 and 6 says only telecommunication, defence and Forign affairs is with India. The remaining 17 ministries are with State's own government. Court clearly say JK never merged India. It is clear 17 our of 20 ministries are with state. No indian can buy land in J&K then how can you deny what court said. Kautilya3 Reliablity is only ensured via cross verfication. Your refrences are NOT reliable sources. Keeping in mind This article is under discretionary sanctions "not any ones desktop setting wishfully manipulated. 39.32.222.65 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
User:39.32.222.65, Reliability is based on the definition given in WP:RS. Your objections must be policy-based. "Cross verification" is your problem. I have already mentioned that above. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict my sources? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I support that IP's version. We do, however, need a reliable source for China's active military support otherwise I will remove that form the infobox. Please stick to WP:NPOV, the IP version sticks to that. How you can present one-sided view of the conflict by naming the Pakistani battles as "invasion". The same is known in Pakistan for Indian battles and the landing of Indian personnel in Srinagar. The Maharaja solely signed the instrument in return for aid, Kautilya, why you keep removing that? Faizan (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict):::@IP: Don't add any original research. In short, Sovereignty means nation which has its own President/Prime Minister as supreme leader without interference of any other nation. It is not case with Jammu and Kashmir. It has "limited" sovereignty. Read Preamble of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir which says "Jammu & Kashmir is and shall remain integral part of Union of India". These are not my words, this is written in preamble of constitution of J & K on which High Court of JK works. And this line is un-amendable, even of state assembly of JK decides to amend its constitution still according to some other provisions in same constitution state assembly can't amend some part of JK constitution which connects JK to India. In Indian parliament there are members which represents JK and you are saying JK is sovereign? JK do has limited sovereignty as said by High court and this is not any new thing that court has said. JK has such kind of special status since 26 January 1950 when Indian constitution was established. Court accepts that JK has merged with India but it only says that it was not like other princely states because other states don't have special status like JK. --Human3015TALK 14:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Faizan, this is not the first time you have supported IP versions. But in case you haven't noticed the IPs have been edit-warring on a page with discretionary sanctions. Ok, enough of that.
But you are mistaken. I never removed the military aid. "Invasion" is reliably sourced. You can read the source. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Faizan, it is expected that you will support IPs version as usual and we all know why. But don't try to insert that version or edit war, IPs version clearly says that "Kashmir is sovereign state" which is a gross POV and OR which may lead you to topic ban. So be aware on this issue. --Human3015TALK 15:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
It is also expected that you will support D4iNa4's version and we all know why. @Kautilya3, "Invasion" would still be a violation of NPOV, I do not dispute RS, as many Indian sources would call the Pakistani attack as "invasion", the same would be true for almost all Pakistani sources which would call the Indian attack as invasion. Faizan (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Instead of giving explanation regarding why you are supporting biased version of IP regarding "sovereignty" of Kashmir you are bringing some other issue here as usual. Do not make wikipedia a battleground as you usually make. Regarding word "invasion", it is not NPOV word according to Pakistan view, but it is NPOV word according to international NPOV view, on quick search I found some neutral sources calling it a "invasion" [7], [8], [9]. We write according to neutral reliable sources, not according to national agendas, either it is Pakistan or India. --Human3015TALK 15:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Faizan: I am glad to see you that do not dispute the RS. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Why is this nonsense going on?
1) J&K constituent assembly is governed by J&K constitution whose preamble makes it clear that it gains its legitimacy from the Union of India and the Constitution of India.
"WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR,
having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure to ourselves-
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among us all;
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this seventeenth day
of November, 1956, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE
TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION."
2) India has not only Article 370, but similar ones like Article 371A for north-eastern states. Does that mean that they do not belong to India? What rubbish!![2]Ghatus (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ghatus, this "nonsense" is going on because of IP 39 and its supporters. This is very clear cut issue. IP was just misinterpreting Court's remarks to push POV. IP also added some other non-relevant things to this topic. Article was in good shape before, there was no need to change things. Still just to assume good faith I supported IP to add court's remarks but in neutral way, we should write what exactly court said, not what Pakistani news papers published regarding court's issue. I wonder how they can give headlines like "Kashmir was never merged with India, says Kashmir High Court". This only shows standard of media.--Human3015TALK 16:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
On a lighter note, the Supreme Court of India would have said in such situations- "We can't entertain each and every nonsense." ha..ha..Ghatus (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
References
^Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir(PDF). Official website of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on National Informatics Centre, India. Retrieved 3 April 2015.
@NA122: Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, "substantial changes" is not a reason enough to revert here [10]. If you reinstate deleted material the WP:BURDEN to defend it transfers it to you. You need to demonstrate that my reasons for deleting viz, "Deleting rehash of accession already covered in the earlier section along with WP:OR and editorializing" are not sound. Please do it now, or self-revert. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I have restored it back to the version from 10 October. [11]. I will give you 24 hours to produce sources for the deleted material. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No response in 24 hours. So I am reinstating my deletion. Another IP edit-warred complaining about "militant Muslims". I will use a sourced term "Muslim rebels." It is not appropriate to use "Muslim Kashmiris" because the real Kashmiris, the ethnic Kashmiris, fought the rebels and raiders. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
39.47.97.40, why don't you discuss your issues [12] on the talk page? - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 24 hours to respond ? is there any such policy. I agree with you to the extent of repeat sentences but for other things let us all disscuss and conclude. NA122 (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Fully protected, one week
Those editors opposing the changes - please state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so. --NeilNtalk to me 13:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: despite your continious efforts to calm every user specially Kautilya3 here [13] and Human3015 [14] here they still persisting with blame game here [15]
Discretionary sanctions
As no one has replied to the section above, I will be reducing the full protection to semi protection and have applied a WP:1RR editing restriction until December 31, 2015. --NeilNtalk to me 13:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Sincere efforts
We all can make sicere efforts to resolve content dispute. Please no one try to disturb pre dispute position. NA122 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Human3015Ghatus Is using talk page to disscuss things is non sense for you ? (SECTION: Why is this nonsense going on?). Kautilya3 Human3015 has broken 3 R rule in 24 hours see [16][17][18] are you going to report him just like you applied for page protection against the opposition? Time has come that we must expand article with step by step talk page disscussions rather then forcing our views with page protection gimmics. NA122 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@NA122: Hi, I think you came after 3-4 days and restored to your last edit. How it is just? Means if you again go on Wikibreak for 3-4 days and when you will come back you will restore version to your last edit and we all have to take permission of you. Why you can't read some of above discussions where many things were resolved? And what you claimed to be "pre-dispute" version is not "pre-dispute" but its version before you touched this article is "pre-dispute" version. It is ok to have pre-dispute version as restored by Avenger.--Human3015TALK 10:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What about 3R by you in 24 hours . A gimmiks to get page protection ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NA122 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Relax everybody. As of now, I don't see any content dispute. The Daily Pakistan bit was added by an IP and reverted. I reinstated it. So, what "dispute" are you talking about? If anybody has exceeded 3RR, please report them at WP:AN3. This talk page is for discussing article content, not conduct issues. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)NA122, I know you are that famous IP39 or IP115 with whom I had long dispute at WP:DRN. It is nice that you have created account. That IP also used to complain about continuos page protection of this article. But it is always good to have page protected instead of edit warring. It doesn't matter on which version page gets protected, but pre-dispute version is always better version. And if you think that me and Kautilya have violated 3rr rule then you can report us at edit warring board.--Human3015TALK 10:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 then why you gave so many warnings to me on talk page for just 2 time revert by me? Human3015 had 3 reverts in 24 hours still you never notified him ? Good conduct is relevent on this sensitive article. We are relax and will use talk page no doubt about it but creating artificial edit wars to get page protections and irelevant warnings are not helping envoirnment to disscuss on talk page. So kindly ensure patience. I strongly belive content disputes could be sorted out. NA122 (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Folks, the new content that I have been writing [19] has been repeatedly deleted six times in the last few days without giving a single word of justification! Is anybody going to raise content issues? Otherwise, I am minded to take all of you to WP:ANI. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No comments made in an entire day! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
If you are saying that you will take all of us to WP:ANI then why anyone will comment? And page is protected so that maybe one of reason people lost interest as of now. Maybe they will resume after page gets unprotected. --Human3015TALK 03:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I said I would take people to WP:ANI for deleting my sourced content six times without providing justification. So, providing justification is their best bet. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Four days passed, with absolutely no discussion. I am taking it up with the administrators because editors cannot hold Wikipedia to ransom with the threat of repeated edit-warring. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@NA122: If you have any policy-based objections to my version of the page [20], this is your last chance to raise them before I reinstate it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: I think there is no need of re-inserting 'court's statement'. It is routine thing and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As I explained above that court has said 'nothing new'. All those things are already written in article. At most we can write it in section of article 370 and I think you already wrote it, there is no need to write it in lead. Second thing, you are writing version of news published by "Daily Pakistan" and tagging it as "unreliable source', I think if it is an unreliable source then why there is need to write it. Rather it is the unnecessary publicity of minor news paper to mention it in lead section of parent Kashmir conflict article. It is just undue. --Human3015TALK 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on policy grounds. But I know that getting into that issue again will only lead to edit-warring. I suggest that we leave it in there for the time being, and revisit it later after I complete editing the body of the article. The main thing I am trying to do is to replace all the unreliable sources and news sources by WP:HISTRS. That needs focused work and genuine debate, where necessary, but I don't want us to get sidetracked by trivia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Let us wait for SPI results. After that disputed edit will be divided in to issues like number one court verdict number 2 plebicit etc for each issue we will disscuss and make edit after delibration. In this way we can solve topic by topic all policy issues in the article. NA122 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry. The SPI has nothing to do with this article. You have had ample time. Please state your objections now. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Both SPIs has been declined and closed. But NA122 you should think over suggestions given to you on SPI case and on your talk page by admin Ponyo. Also 1RR rule has been implemented on this page and any second revert will result in block. These rules are same for you and me. Now you should raise your concerns regarding content dispute. --Human3015TALK 21:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Now let us move to disscuss point by point by creating new sections on new edits rather then jumbling all togather. I am adding 3 new sections for diffrent topics. Thank you all to agree with sincere efforts. NA122 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@NA122: You can discuss your new edits to your heart's content. But you haven't yet explained the reason for your reverts of my edits on 15 October [21], and twice on the 19 October [22], [23]. Your edit-warring caused the page to be full-protected and NeilN advised you to discuss the issues with that content on this talk page. You have not yet done so. It is highly improper to make new edits on the old version of the article, before justifying your past reverts. For one last time, what is your objection to the content you have reverted? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3 one reason of my revert was restore pre dispute version and make sincere efforts to solve disputes by disscussing every new edit/dispute using talk page and . two Page was not protected due to my edit war because i only made two reverts (That can not be termed as edit war). Those two edits were not suppourting any point of view neither IPS never indians. Page was protected by three efforts Kautilya3 then Human3015 again Kautilya3 vs IP edits. three disputed content between IPs and Indians editors has multiple topics so it is very difficult to give nod to all edits in totality. I as a nuetral editor would recommend that the new insertor should take concensus topic by topic. Divide disputed content in to topics and then disscuss policy issues. other wise it will remain complex editing with possible dispute and edit war by parties (IPs vs Indians). You can follow benchmark set by me (three new sections for each new edit). Best of luck. NA122 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, you are obfuscating the issue. I will open a new section below with precise information. Please respond there if you are interested. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
NA122, because there were multiple edit wars going on simultaneously, you seem to believe that your edit-warring and disruption have not been noticed. Here are my edits that you have reverted multiple times:
Kautilya3, 11:47, 16 October 2015, "Replaced "militant Muslims" by "Muslim rebels" (sourced term)", reverted by you at 05:40, 19 October 2015. (You reinstated the replacement at 06:22, 24 October 2015, but removed the source.)
Kautilya3, 21:41, 16 October 2015, "→Partition and invasion: The intervention happened a lot earlier according to historian Ian Copland; Encyclopedia Britannica is not WP:HISTRS", reverted by you at 05:40, 19 October 2015.
You reverted these edits again at 09:44, 19 October 2015 (after Human3015 reinstated them) with the edit summary "CAUTION: Human3015 you constantly re-inserting the things which other users are disscussing on talk page. I request you to not misuse TW to edit disruptivly''".
You claimed at 05:43, 19 October that 24 hours was not enough for you to respond. But 4 days had already passed by then and further 5 days since then. You have not yet given any justification.
NeilN has warned you (as one of those opposing the changes), to "state your policy or guideline based reasons for doing so" at 13:41, 19 October and noted at 13:47, 23 October that no one has replied.
Due to your failure to justify your reverts and your new edits this morning (as if that chapter had been concluded), I have no choice but to reinstate my version of the article that you have ransacked. You are aware that this page is under discretionary sanctions, and you have also been notified of ARBIPA sanctions. Any further disruption by you will be dealt with with all the seriousness it deserves. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Source term restored "Muslim rebels" as done by Kautilya3 in his 16 October edit. I am adding talk page section for inviting opinions. NA122 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But since this is a reliably sourced term, it doesn't need any further discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Since lead also covers 2014 election. Too much of 2008 election in the lead. moved to relevant section. Talk page section added for opinions. NA122 (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
My last edit is relevant for LeT and russian stance. Adding Talk page section for disscussions. NA122 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding what should go into the lead, NeilN has stated his opinion as follows: This article covers a timeframe of about 70 years so anything in the lead should describe events that have significant historical impact. You might want to ask editors to find sources that provide a historical overview of the conflict (instead of cherrypicking "news of the day" pieces) and see what they mention in the first few paragraphs. This suggestion is patterned on WP:MEDRS where we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature. I support this approach. Cherry picking news items for the lead is a very bad idea. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
According to WP:HISTRS "Articles that deal with current events, or events occurring entirely in the previous one or two years are not regarded as historical articles, since they have not been studied by historians. When historians first begin to write about an event, then it should be regarded as a historical article."
@Human3015: events happened in 21st century or in 2001 are History by this defination. HIAS (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Firstly WP:HISTRS is not a Wikipedia policy but it is just an advice or opinion of a Wikipedian. You can read it in same essay. Your arguments are no where relevant here, you are removing content which you are not liking. What source you want for statement of UN Secretaty General? It is published in news and valid here. And not all of sources you are removing are "news", you are also removing journals of Harvad university.--Human3015 TALK 08:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Do not Attack me on the basis of your assumbtions. You are trying to insert News Articles to describe history, please provide a Reliable source for your WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that UN resolution of 1948 was an advice, instead of your original research of opinionated statements like "UN resolution is not compulsory" Moreover the source which you referenced as journal of Harvad university is a dead link. HIAS (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note because I have to clock out soon. Both of you are right. Pretty much everything in this article needs to be sourced from HISTRS. But note that the guidelines say, the other unreliable content should be rewritten using HISTRS. We can't just delete it. Until it is written, the normal guidelines of Verifiability apply. (I have been rewriting it bit by bit. It is a big job!) - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
@HIAS: It is well-known that the Security Council was called upon to play a mediatory role. This might have been an error on India's part. Korbel (1953), cited in the article, says this: In attempting to establish these responsibilities, one must not, first of all, lose sight of the fact that the Security Council's intervention was limited to mediation. The nature of mediation inevitably implies that the final responsibility for the solution or lack of solution of the dispute rests with the governments concerned. I am afraid Pakistanis generally misunderstand the nature of the UN resolutions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
TalhaZubairButt edits
@TalhaZubairButt: I am afraid I have several problems with the new material you added today [26]:
The first statment, With the exception of a few, most of the Muslim-majority princely-states acceded to Pakistan while most of the Hindu-majority princely states joined India. — It is completely unsourced. That is not permitted. While the statement is factually true, it implies an unwarranted synthesis in this context. One could also say that all the princely states that were internal to Indian territory acceded to India, and those internal to Pakistani territory acceded to Pakistan.
The second statement, The Maharajah of Kashmir attempted to change the predominantly Muslim demographics of his state by engaging in an ethnic cleansing of Muslims from the Jammu section of his state. — There is nothing like this in the cited source. The term "ethnic cleansing" doesn't occur. Neither is an accusation made against the Maharaja.
The third statement, as his state forces massacred thousands of Muslims in Jammu and expelled thousands more from their homes in an effort to shift the population ratio in favour of Hindus. — This follows in the same vein. The source doesn't say that the state forces massacred. Neither is there any word like "expelled."
The fourth statement, This precipitated a revolt by the Muslims in the Poonch district of Jammu and Kashmir against the Hindu Maharajah. — This is also not to be found in the source.
Consequently, I am reverting your edit, and I hope you will discuss these matters to the full before contemplating their reinsertion. I am also quite disappointed that you take such liberties in a highly sensitive article like this! - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As for this edit [27], I will change the attribution to A. G. Noorani because this is not a Frontline editorial. It is not a great source, being a magazine opinion column, but we can keep it until we find better sources. The massacre issue shouldn't break up the Muslim League coverage because we haven't established any connection between the two.
Personally speaking, I do believe that both the Poonch uprising and the massacres had a role in the final outcome. But we need to find the right sources that give us solid information. I will keep looking. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that Noorani is covering the work of Illyas Chattha, who is an excellent source. If you can add information from Chattha's book, I would have no objections as long as you represent it fairly and accurately. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
For our own perspective, the timeline of Maharaja's plans is clear from his appointment of Prime Ministers. Ram Chandra Kak is well-known to have favoured accession to Pakistan. His Prime Ministership indicates that the Maharaja had kept open the possibility. His replacement by Major Janak Singh indicates that he gave up on the possibility of acceding to Pakistan and possibly wanted to be independent. His replacement by Mehr Chand Mahajan (a known pro-Congress legalite) meant the Maharaja had tilted towards India. If he had ordered a massacre in Jammu, it could not have been before Mahajan's appointment. In contrast, the refugees from Rawalpindi and Sialkot started arriving in March 1947. We shouldn't mix up the timelines. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Spirit Ethanol: I was surprised by your revert. Did you notice that my edit summary [28] has clearly stated "newspapers are only reliable for news, not history?" Are you disputing this? - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: What is wrong with sources? They seem to document mentioned topic, furthermore, a book, Twenty Tumultuous Years is cited. From what I know newspapers are also fine sources for history. Kindly point out according to which policy did you remove sourced content. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The policy, WP:NEWSORG is linked to the word "newspapers" above. You should also read WP:HISTRS. We can take it to WP:RSN if you wish. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I went through policy, couldn't find, according to what you removed statements. I quote NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."... and text you removed uses "BBC reported" and "According to Al Jazeera" which is attribution to a news site and not statement of fact. If you think sources are unreliable, that's something else. Kindly reconsider after going through NEWSORG and text removed in question and let me know. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing to reconsider. The source carries a bold face disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera's editorial policy. The editor here called them Al Jazeera's views. That in itself is a big blooper. Supposing we replace it with "According to Wajahat Ahmad," the author of the article, the question then is, who is he? Why should Wikipedia readers care about the views of a random disgruntled Kashmiri columnist? He has no scholarly peer-reviewed publications of any kind. It would be WP:UNDUE. There is no dearth of reliable scholarly peer-reviewed articles and books on Kashmir. The article itself is called Kashmir conflict, ergo there would be multiple sides to every issue. Only scholarly articles that consider all sides of the issues and evaluate them fairly belong in here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
You might also note a similar exchange here [29]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
By this logic then each and every material from Times of India, Hindustan times be deleted as those are niether scholorly work nor independent view. 39.32.102.221 (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
As WP:NEWSORG states, mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources for news. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Then as WP:NEWSORG states, also applies in Al jazeera case and should be considered reliable sources for news. 39.32.102.221 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The article cited was not "news". It is an opinion column by an unknown columnist. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 50 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Not much mention of China but un necessary details
Pakistan Failure to with draw forces first (So many sentences and repetive) Which are not important because UN itself also demanded parity on Forces exclusion i.e. Both India and Pakistani Forces to leave kashmir before plebicite so why filling article in a way to just over highlight and blame Pakistan ? somebody need to make section more partial.
1971 war no relevant
1965 war over and above coverage.肥料 (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments.
I have been rewriting the text one section at a time based on high-quality historical sources as recommended by WP:HISTRS. The 1971 war section is yet to be expanded.
You are right that the UN mediation (which deals with Pakistan withdrawal) has gotten repeated across two sections. I will try and integrate them.
If you believe UN asked for parity between India and Pakistan, please provide the reliable source for it.
As for China, the weight should be assigned based on what the reliable sources covering the entire conflict do about it. If you have a source that assigns greater weight to China, please provide it.
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kashmir conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
