Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:07, 24 April 2017

India: Jammu and Kashmir B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2017.

Estimates

@Problematics: Hey mate. Since you reinstated the Khurram Parvez's figure of 7,000, it turns out that that content was actually added by me initially in this edit. But later as I said in this edit, it occurred to me that his estimate might also have been misled like the ones of Amit Ranjan and Seema Kazi, as both of them misinterpreted this source - . Also Khurram Parvez does not specify/clarify if he was mentioning war rapes, and more importantly, he offers no clues as to the source or basis of his calculations. Now we have no other reliable sources that give figures close to Khurram Parvez's estimate. So I don't think its constructive to have that mention in the article. Pinging @Kautilya3: if he is interested to take a look on this. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Tyler. I was reading Parvez's interview on Scroll.in and this is what he said;

According to our estimates of sexualised and gendered violence, there are 7,000 cases.

So this is the estimate of JKCCS in context of the conflict and not the government registration figures (which include non-war rape) quoted by Kazi and Ranjan.

This source also lends credence to that 7000 is the total of cases documented by JKCCS. Problematics (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if they *documented* 7000 cases, then its totally fine. I will have to admit that I'm quite shocked to see such a huge number! If possible, can you dig up the corresponding content in the original report from the JKCCS site - . I'm not able to find it. From the 'main report' in that link, I could only find this:

Prepared over two years, this report is a part of the continuing work to understand and analyze the role of the Indian State in Jammu and Kashmir that has resulted in widespread and systematic violence including the disappearance of 8000+ persons, 70,000+ deaths, 6000+ unknown, unmarked and mass graves, and countless cases of torture and sexual violence.

Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Ashraf, Ajaz. "'Do you need 700,000 soldiers to fight 150 militants?': Kashmiri rights activist Khurram Parvez". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2017-04-21.
2. "Women's Resistance in Kashmir". AWID. 22 February 2017.

Redirected again

Found that this article is fork of an already redirected article after consensus, kindly don't recreate unless you have consensus for it. Capitals00 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: have you read the edit summary of mine of this section? I have also notified on the noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 15:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a new article created a few days ago. I never heard of anybody needing any consensus to create an aricle. What on earth are you talking about?

There is nothing in common between this article and the old Rape in Jammu and Kashmir that was merged. I don't think the old merge decision applies to this article at all.

Pinging RegentsPark for his advice. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are re-creating an article that ended up getting redirected, then you need consensus to recreate it. Article at present form is just like what Rape in Jammu and Kashmir was. Capitals00 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I second Kautilya. The article in the present stage is supported by dozens of reliable and scholarly sources, and has a lot of own and elaborate content, all of which cannot go into other broader articles. Also this article has been linked in several other broader articles where the overdue content was cleaned up, so now merging this to any other article would be very naive. The situations for the deletion of previous article were different, many of the editors in that forum were bothered that the article was poorly sourced and that it was small in length. (Anyways I hardly see any consensus there, I wonder how that was closed!) But that is not the case now. I think, editors of this article (including myself) have put a decent effort to bring it to an acceptable standard. And is still being worked up to get further developed. So, if you are still that interested to delete this, you may open another forum here for the editors to review the current article and decide if it should be deleted. — Tyler Durden (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality and clarification on 'Kashmir conflict'

See Kashmir conflict, "The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict primarily between India and Pakistan, having started just after the partition of India in 1947." While whole Rape in Kashmir conflict was India only. If we are going to include anything about Pakistan which is necessary since its 'Kashmir conflict', I think it would be neutral. Capitals00 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. There are plenty of high-quality reliable sources that focus on India's internal conflict now, e.g., Bose, Sumantra (2003), Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-01173-2. Your contentions hold no water. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You can look up the actual definition of "Kashmir conflict" if you want to, who has denied that they don't focus on internal conflicts of India? But it doesn't means we should be entirely ignoring Pakistan administered Kashmir. And your source from 2009 that you refer as "now" has greatly focused on Pakistan as well. Capitals00 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead of Kashmir conflict also clearly states:

The present conflict is in Kashmir Valley.

I hope that should give you an idea. And in any case, you can feel free to add any content regarding the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir, with significant source(s). There are hardly any reliable sources that discuss regarding that. So until you can prove otherwise, your argument that the current-state article is lacking a NPOV is baseless. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Article has been expanded already. Capitals00 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Problematic editing

@Capitals00: Can you please explain this edit of yours? What on earth were you starting? The content you added in the Background section is irrelevant, its not background to this subject and is out of the scope of this article. And apart from that, all you cited was one report of sexual abuse of which no source said it was used as a weapon of war. Also BBC explicitly states: This is the first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused. Now how can you possibly justify inserting this in the lead? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't do blanket reversion of the entire edit just because a single sentence didn't fit the source, instead you had to reword it. It seems there are more than these few scholarly sources that concern Pakistan administered Kashmir. I am removing the example from as weapon of war. Would rather make separate section for Pakistan if there are sources talking about multiple cases.

Also the background does fit it, it shows that when did rape actually started to take place in this entire Kashmir conflict, as noted by reliable sources. Capitals00 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit! You finally understood. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Content was not well placed, but not useless either, I have created new section for Pakistan. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello D4iNa4, this article is specifically for covering war rape in the present post-1989 conflict in Kashmir Valley. Please add your material to Rape in Pakistan, Sectarian violence in Pakistan, Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 or other more suitable pages for your content. Thank you. Problematics (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why are category:Rape in India, category:Human rights abuses in India, category:Controversies in India, but not the Pakistani equivalents? Unless of course Pakistanis are truly virtuous. WP:POV, perhaps? Jim1138 (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with User:Jim1138 that this article is suffering with WP:Censorship. Capitals00, TylerDurden apparently agreed to include Pakistani rape violence in Kashmir, here we have over 10 reliable sources but a new SPA is censoring them. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, solid scholarly sources discussing war rape by Pakistanis inside the insurgency areas since 1990, feel welcome to add. If its not that then its not for this article. Problematics (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Then make such a senseless article title too, "Rape in Kashmir since 1989" and have it deleted soon. You are finding a excuse to carry on your disruptive censorship as we can see. Thus you are lacking sense. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from WP:PERSONAL. Problematics (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed to add the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir, if any.

But there are a lot of problems with the content added by D4iNa4. It clearly suffers from WP:COATRACK. Also it was again written and placed inappropriately.

The 1947 violence by Pakistani tribesmen happened in and around Baramulla, which is today Indian administered Kashmir, they were not the incidents occurred in Pakistan administered Kashmir, as the user wrote. And as I have already said, that content does not belong here. Its out of the scope of this article. Those Pakistani tribesmen atrocities are not meant to be covered in Human rights abuses in Kashmir or Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, and apparently they are not. The same is the case with this article. Capitals00 himself removed it later, and it has to be covered in First Kashmir War and Baramulla(its duly covered in this page).

The 1970s incidents in PAK are also not related to this article. The content clearly specifies that it happened when the excessive military was deployed due to Shia-Sunni conflicts, that has got nothing to do with Kashmir conflict.

Pakistani militants have been also involved in rape of Kashmiri women and torturing of prisoners.: This line again, as per source, is talking about the violence by militants in IAK, not PAK, and it has been extensively covered in this article in an explicit section.

So again we're left with one single case of sexual abuse reported by BBC, of which I have already told, is blatantly WP:UNDUE to build content in this article.

And User:D4iNa4, kindly refrain from personal attacks and discuss only the substance. That's not at all a good practice for a responsible and rational editor of Misplaced Pages. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

1. MacDonald, Myra (2017). Defeat is an Orphan: How Pakistan Lost the Great South Asian War. Oxford University Press.

• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles
• High-importance Jammu and Kashmir articles
• B-Class Jammu and Kashmir articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir articles
• WikiProject India articles