Misplaced Pages

• As regards some people separating the Pakistan matter, how often do the same people commit misdeeds in Azad Kashmir and also in Indian Kashmir?
  • Of this dispute, how much is about use of the word "rape", and how much about whether to call the situation an "insurgency" or a "conflict" or whatever? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the Democracy Index and Censorship by country, it becomes obvious that reports and research studies on Indian Kashmir are more prevalent. I don't see enough sources for either countries though that would refer it under "conflict" or "insurgency" though, but apparently they do fall under "conflict". Capitals00 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose-- I agree with Tyler Durden, Moreover the the pre insurgency and Pakistani cases will only lengthen the article to an extent that it becomes practically inaccessible and confusing to the readers. This article covers specific topic based on good sources and has practical access to the all aspects of the topic which is good for readers. Rape after Insurgency is so notable that it should surely have separate article on Misplaced Pages. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 10:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the extensive discussion above. Rape incidents within the Kashmir Valley have a connection to the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir and the human rights situation there. These incidents are documented by multiple reliable sources. Likewise, users in favour of support have not demonstrated how the events of the 1947 war remotely relate to that situation. It is apples and oranges, and like comparing human rights in Jammu and Kashmir with human rights in the historical princely state. Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

*oppose The issue of the rape epidemic in indian controlled Kashmir has recieved massive international attention and deserves a separate article it is a realtively new problem and has garnered much attention as the sources clearly testify. Trying to muddy the water with a few fringe cases across the border serves no purpose this article should not be censored to appease certain people. 82.132.228.110 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC) Nangparbat sock.

• Oppose both names; Oppose the existence of any such page Both titles are nonsensical names. Literally, "Rape in the Kashmir insurgency" means "rape in the Kashmir insurgency movement," which I imagine was not the goal of the creator, and "rape in the Kashmir conflict" is meaningless as the term conflict is wider than the instances of military hostilities during it. It usually refers to a long-lasting strife. How can you have rape in a strife? This page should not have created in the first place. There are plenty pages on Kashmir for POV-pushing editors to display their toxic cogitations. Shame on the original creator whoever he or she is and shame on the page mover wannabe, whoever he or she is. Seriously, how many pages do people want? There is already: Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir. There is also the template {{Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir}} -- Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC) I have lost all interest in this debate. I know when I'm wasting my time, and that time has come and gone. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I believe that you are wholly correct on this matter. I believe that its rather a better choice to redirect and merge this article to existing Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, because Rape in Jammu and Kashmir was also redirectedafter consensus to it. Article has been unnecessarily made lengthy as well, but pulling out quotes from at least 7 sources when everything could be said in simple 1 paragraph. I would rather take this page move request back and obviously see if people are interested in redirect and merge instead. @Kautilya3, Tyler Durden, Jim1138, D4iNa4, Mar4d, and MBlaze Lightning: Capitals00 (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: With all due respect, I disagree on the last point. Misplaced Pages isn't a paper encylopaedia; there is no practical limit on content creation. Especially when there is in-depth coverage of a topic provided in WP:RS and WP:V, which is true for this article. Unfortunately there is a group of editors that is intent on whitewashing content simply because of nationalistic fervour and WP:CENSORSHIP. In the process, these editors are damaging the encyclopedia. Mar4d (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes "nationalistic fervour and WP:CENSORSHIP" describes your edits well. Also see WP:POTKETTLE. Capitals00 (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

First, you need to sort out the difference between a WP:REVERT and WP:EDIT. That above is a revert. Undoing another edit (based on multiple editors' objections) is not WP:CENSORSHIP. But blanking material, synthesizing content, edit warring in the process, and consistently flouting a WP:DEADHORSE to justify it definitely counts as a display of censorship. Mar4d (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: That is not my point. Where is the evidence that edits about this topic were made on the already existing pages, and having outgrown those articles' size, are being spun off to a new article? The day before this page was created, the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir section on sexual violence stood in this pitiful newbie-quality state, not exactly bursting with excellent edits that required a spin-off; Human rights abuses in Kashmir and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir are stubs. I'm not taking any sides here; just saying first fill up the available articles, then create spin-offs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

But would that not negate the whole concept of WP:BOLD? I don't see why the above should be seen as a reason to limit content expansion. This article has 80+ citations. So in that sense, it is a spin-off and outgrows its parent article/s. Mar4d (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

BOLD applies to making BOLD edits in an article, not to creating content forks in multiple articles with overlapping content. As the Content Forking site says: ""A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable, ... A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Misplaced Pages, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." This is certainly not a summary style spin-off. It needs to be redirected to any of the three above-mentioned articles, and only when they are in a adequately sourced, summary-style, overlong and stable state within those articles, can a spin-off be made. This sort of thing puts an unfair burden on the people doing the job of maintenance in Misplaced Pages articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I should note that Mar4d provided a wrong estimate of "80+ citations", amount is just 31 or around same, with "Kazi, Seema" mentioned over 15 times in just citations and bibliography. Article is still remains a WP:FORK. Capitals00 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict. This is a hopelessly complicated and tendentious subject. So I will just limit myself to the question posed, viz., the move request. "Sexual violence" is more neutral and avoids the unfortunate connotations that "rape" has. That is what is used in world bodies, e.g., UN Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict. "Kashmir conflict" was the original title used, but the creator of the page has chosen to focus on the present insurgency only. Granted that the scale of violence in the present insurgency is likely to be larger than anything that preceded it, but sexual violence did occur in all stages of the conflict. The article can still weight the present conflict more, but it is better to broaden the scope to the whole conflict so that we don't limit our finger pointing to any one party, preserve our WP:NPOV mission. For people that think that this article should not exist, I point to the precedents in Category:Wartime sexual violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

^ Support the 'sexual violence' part. — Tyler Durden (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the last line in Kautilya's comment. Its a quite sound point. — Tyler Durden (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sexual violence or rape, it doesn't make much difference. Pages that use both in their titles exist on Misplaced Pages. What is offensive and what is not is not the issue here, and at least I did not argue that that was the stumbling block. Perhaps I did not explain this clearly. I said above, "rape in the Kashmir conflict" is meaningless as the term conflict is wider than the instances of military hostilities during it." What I should have said was, "rape in the Kashmir conflict" is meaningless as the term conflict, when applied to Kashmir, is wider than the instances of military hostilities during it. The word conflict has two meanings: a) it can refer to a military engagement, to an armed conflict, i.e. to military hostilities between two warring parties, these can be shorter-termed as in South Sudan, Ivory Coast, Bosnia, or longer termed, as in Columbia/FARC or b) it can refer to long-term strife, a state of mutual distrust or hostility, which may be punctuated with military hostilities. The UN Special Rep is talking about a). On their page they say, "These resolutions signal a change in the way the international community views and deals with conflict-related sexual violence. It is no longer seen as an inevitable by-product of war, but rather a crime that is preventable and punishable under international human rights law." (emphasis mine). In other words, they use "in conflict" and "conflict-related" synonymously. Kashmir, however, is an instance of b). It is the oldest dispute before the UN. This year it will mark its 70 anniversary. During these 70 years there have been short periods of military hostility interspersed with longer periods of distrust and enmity. What then would constitute "conflict-related sexual violence" in Kashmir, i.e. sexual violence in Kashmir that is the outcome of mutual distrust and enmity between India and Paksitan including outbreaks of war? Rape committed by soldiers or tribesmen in Baramula in 1947? Rape committed by X, Y, or Z in 1965? Rape committed within earshot of K2? Rape of an Israeli tourist in a houseboat on the Jhelum by locals? Rape committed by the respective armies of India and Pakistan against their own people? Any rape in Kashmir? The term becomes meaningless. Second, the more important point is that this page is a content fork. As the UN's page says, sexual violence is " a crime that is preventable and punishable under international human rights law." There are already three articles on Human rights abuses in Kashmir (a stub), Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir (a stub), Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, which last even has a section on Sexual Violence, which is nothing but a newbie's list. How then are you all creating a new article? Where is the evidence that you have already developed those articles to such a state of bursting-at-the-seams, summary-style, reliability that the sexual violence bit now needs to be spun-off as an independent article? There isn't. It is a case of the usual problem in South Asia related articles: Joe Schmo 1 comes along and starts one article (e.g. Ragging), Joe Schmo 2 starts another Ragging in India, Joe Schmo 3 Ragging in Sri Lanka, Joe Schmo 4 Ragging at the Indian Institutes of Technology, ...) The same here. Seriously guys. You are all adults, I'm assuming. What the heck is going on here? Please don't create a POV fork. Please develop those articles first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

PS I've added a "duplication" tag to the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: If that point is taken on face value (the existence of other articles lacking coverage), how is Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus any different? Btw, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) should be avoided as an argument. You should look at this article on its individual merit. Mar4d (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No different, except that it was created two years ago, whereas this one was only 7 days ago. I was about to slap on the duplication tag on that too, but for an older article, the procedure is probably different.... But one of you, who have edited the article before could do that. Be careful though not to get into an edit war. There are discretionary sanctions. The main thing is that one article that is well written and tightly organized has much more of an impact factor than a dozen articles that focus on selective things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: This is my argument: As to the title issue you've pointed out, that "Rape in the Kashmir conflict" is a vague term, its true. It definitely won't mean any rape in Kashmir as in Rape in India, as any rape is not conflict-related rape. But rape happened in the conflict during partition violence, 1947 war, 1965 war etc also. All of this will only make the article complex and confusing to the readers. Also in my opinion, readers won't expect all of that stuff from an article of this type. But if still majority the editors in consensus decide to keep the title that way, assume we have the article with that name, and we systematically document all that stuff in a 'History' section. I even have no problem with that, but my concern is this. When the article's title was "Rape in Kashmir conflict", two editors started adding a part of this history stuff under a new section named "Rape in Pakistan administered Kashmir(PAK)", while much of it, almost all of it, occurred in today's Indian administered Kashmir(IAK), and when neither PAK or IAK existed. Also they have added content on Shia-Sunni conflict in PAK which has no relation to Kashmir conflict, unless WP:RS say so(which they did not produce), and a line that about Pakistani militants committing rape in IAK, all of these in the same "Rape in PAK section". They have done this desperately and nonsensically six goddamn times, by edit warring, despite my elaborate requests on this talk page reasonably explaining not to do so. Check those edits if you want, that was blatant POV pushing. They have even cited the same section below this REM, claiming that it should be included, as it is "sexual violence in Pakistan administered Kashmir." If this is the case with just two POV pushers in the initial days, what would be the situation if tomorrow more of them start attacking this controversial article? How can we possibly deal with it then? It becomes more and more complex to maintain the article "Rape in Kashmir conflict". So, I have taken a position against it. Regarding the content on rape inside PAK, we all know that apparently there has been very little internal conflict and insurgency in PAK, that too when compared to the Kashmir valley in IAK. So the POV editors' idea to balance(I'd say 'dilute', given the record) the conflict-related violence in IAK with that in PAK, will only end up becoming an absurdity. It will fail. The 2005 BBC report of a rape case which says, it was the first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused, is a clear example for this (emphasis mine). The POV editors are trying to compare conflict-related violence in one region which is an extensive internal-conflict and insurgency zone for almost four decades, with another region, which is apparently not. All that aside, you haven't explained in any of your messages in this thread, why the article can/cannot have the title "Rape in Kashmir insurgency". I would like to know your opinion on that, as I support it. Kashmir insurgency is an ongoing internal conflict that has been taking place in the Kashmir valley since about 1990s. It finely fits your a) category that you mentioned in your earlier post in this thread. Also, given that we have plenty of sources which explicitly focus on rape in Kashmir insurgency, when they talk about "rape in Kashmir" (we have more than a dozen of scholarly sources in this article itself), presumably due to the predominant scale of violence due to this insurgency, more than anywhere else in whole of Kashmir.

Coming your second concern, its true that the creator of this article did not bother to improve or summarize the corresponding content in any of the broader articles. Its a mistake. I know that the 'sexual violence' section in Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir used to be too ugly before the creation of this article. I tried to clean it up a bit later, but however did not put any serious efforts though. Human rights abuses in Kashmir, from top to bottom, is all in a messy and unorganised state. It needs a whole lot of time and effort to refine that article, let alone categorically summarizing the 'sexual violence' part in it. (Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, which is not in any way connected to this article in the current state, is an ultimate stub and content fork. It should've been long back merged into Human rights abuses in Kashmir.) I'm not the one who created this article. But keeping in mind that the broader articles should be correspondingly well summarized due to the 'spin off' of this content fork, the thing is that this article, though irresponsibly, has already been created by an editor. Now the primary question in this forum is, what to do with this article. As you must've gone through the article while reviewing it for quality scale, do you think all the significant points in the content of this article can be possibly documented by summarizing in any of the other articles, specifically in the 'sexual violence' section of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir? I clearly don't think so. The article has a well sourced and sizable content, cited to many notable sources. As some editor counted, there is content from, some above 30 reliable sources. More important is the significant amount of content that is there, which cannot be completely driven into other broader articles. It would be UNDUE for those articles. So merging/deleting this article at this stage would mean loss of considerable notable content along with a notable article, which is supported by several notable sources. It is the last thing we would wanna do in Misplaced Pages. So in this context, as Mar4d has pointed above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument for saying this article should be non-existent. That's all I can tell you. Feel free to differ with me wherever you wish to do so. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"occurred in today's Indian administered Kashmir", weren't you shown the sources above, that talks about the rapes carried out by pakistani military in the territories that are administered by them today? Let me quote it for you, "invaders attacked was Muzaffarabad town, where they looted, raped and killed many". Finally you need to avoid WP:BLUD and WP:ICANTHEARYOU, because your wall of texts are not helping, but only making this environment worse. You are asking everyone to repeat same argument when they have already answered the question, instead you need to move forward. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS cannot be used as scapegoat for creating forks. This entire article is itself WP:UNDUE, as it pulls out quotes from few sources just to make this article look bigger. @Sitush: for his opinion too. Capitals00 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: As I have already indicated, both names are ambiguous, even meaningless. In the English language, "Rape in the Kashmir insurgency" means "rape in the Kashmir insurgency movement," not "Rape by security forces in insurgency beset Kashmir." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was meaning the same: "rape in the Kashmir insurgency movement." And its meaningful. Also, obviously not "Rape by security forces in insurgency beset Kashmir." Else I wouldn't have added this section in the article. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: No, no, that is not what I meant. Let me rephrase: In the English language, "rape in the Kashmir insurgency" refers to insurgent on insurgent rape = rape perpetrated by insurgents on their own members. (This does happen in movements, or organizations, when some domineering or charismatic members force themselves on others. The Wikileaks Julian Assange would be an example.) The term "rape in the Kashmir insurgency" dpes not include rape by Indian security forces on anyone, nor would it include rape by militants on others. The creators of this page made a booboo in naming it. That's what happens when people hurriedly create a POV fork. They don't even take the time to discus the naming with others first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Indeed. "Rape in Kashmir insurgency" is wrong English. That is one of the reasons I supported the move.
• Whether this article should exist separately or merged into Human rights abuses in Kashmir is a harder question. I haven't yet fully considered it. It depends on a whole lot of factors such as the scale of the sexual violence, how the RS are treating it, its prominence (or lack of it) in the counter-insurgency operations etc. It is a hopelessly tendentious issue. But on the face of it, there is no reason why this subject should not be covered in the larlger article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge and redirect to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir Fowler*fowler has made the best possible argument here. None of the other similar articles ever had a article like these 3 that have potential of broader scope. I can support move to 'Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict, but then it should include the material about Pakistan that couple of users here are opposing. Thus my biggest vote goes to merge and redirect. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Support renaming to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict as per discussion here in order to reach to a compromise. Should include incidents of both nations since scholarly sources can be found for both countries. I see @Capitals00: has changed the vote, while Fowler has withdrawn, I would ping @MBlaze Lightning: so that he can be convinced to change his vote per the compromise. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose- The subject of rape/sexual violence in Kashmir Valley is so frequently discussed in the scholarly sources that it meets the criteria of WP:Notability. And this discussion revolves around sexual violence in the insurgency since 1990. Especially in the sources used for this article. The issue of rape in 1947-1948 is not discussed in scholarly texts about sexual violence in the Kashmir insurgency. They are discussed separately. Still if some people want to discuss rapes that happened in 1947, by tribals in Baramulla/Muzaffarabad districts or by Dogras in Jammu, they are free to create another page chronicling the entire history of conflict related sexual abuses in the region since 1947. But they should not disturb the flow of this article which begins with Since the onset of the insurgency... and discusses issues and aspects relating to such violence in the insurgency.

At the same time changing the word from 'Rape' to 'Sexual Violence' is fine. What is not fine is disturbing this article's text's flow and hence I strongly oppose a name change from insurgency to conflict. Problematics (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• • Dear Problematics (talk · contribs) (@Problematics:) Yours is an WP:SPA created a few days ago for the sole purpose of creating this POV-fork. Why should your opinion count? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Dear Fowler&fowler, because I have put in my hard work and effort to improve this article. And what you have linked to is an essay and not a policy. Problematics (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Problematics: I am procedurally noting this here, per WP:MEAT, which says, "Misplaced Pages has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by an influx of single-purpose editors: "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, ... " Whether your account constitutes such an account I will leave an uninvolved admin to determine. As you are no doubt aware, this is a contentious page, and generally a contentious topic. ArbCom has discretionary sanctions in place. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• New proposal An alternative title can be Rape during Kashmir Conflict (1988-present). This title would match the present content about conflict related sexual violence in the insurgency area of Indian administrated Kashmir. Post 1988 is a whole new phase of sexual violence as war weapon in Kashmir and is a stand alone topic which deserves solitary coverage. Its also how the scholars and common sources deal with this subject, they talk about this in the context of the conflict in Indian Kashmir since 1988 onwards. If we add history then we will eventually get to a point where even 16th century Mughal rapes in Kashmir will be included. Come on people! Problematics (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose renaming or merging- As per precedent Rape during the occupation of Japan, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Rape during the Rwandan Genocide. Let's call a spade, a spade. Rape in Kashmir has been categorized as a War Crime not human right abuse. Thus, it needs to be documented in a separate article.

• Rape in Kashmir - The Forgotten War Crime by Rita Pal, The Huffington Post.
• "Human Rights Watch first documented sexual violence in conflict in 1993 when we published a report about how Indian security forces in Kashmir used rape to brutalise women...Since that first report,...rape in conflict is prosecuted as a war crime and a crime against humanity." - It’s Not Just About Sexual Violence by Liesl Gerntholtz, The Huffington Post mfarazbaig --mfarazbaig 20:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge and redirect to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir, largely per Fowler&fowler. We don't need more POV content forks. The article, as it is now is horribly WP:POV in tone and contains lots of propaganda and allegations presented as facts, and makes no mention of the subsequent investigations that revealed almost all reports were proved either false, or unsubstantiated.,, , . And there was already a merge consensus established at Talk:Rape_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Proposed_merge_with_Rape_in_India.—MBlaze Lightning 06:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Bro, before posting them here, did you even properly read what those sources said and the headings they used, on your claims: the subsequent investigations that revealed almost all reports were proved either false, or unsubstantiated? Just asking. Coz not in a mood to argue anymore. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I did read them. The article talks about Kunan Poshpora but does not mention the findings of Press Council of India, which found the charges against the Indian forces to be "baseless"..

says:

It says that the army had received 1,532 allegations of human rights violations (995 from Jammu and Kashmir, 485 from North-Eastern states, and 52 complaints from other states) out of which 1,508 were investigated, and 24 investigations remained pending as of 2011. Out of a total of 995 complaints of human rights violations against the army in Jammu and Kashmir, 986 have been investigated by the army to date, while 9 investigations currently remain pending, it says. The army says it found that 961 of these allegations were ‘false, baseless’ through internal enquiries. In the 25 cases found to be ‘true,’ it says 129 army personnel were punished,

This article demonstrates heavy bias, and not facts and evidence. Per WP:NPOV, articles must present significant POVs of all sides, which this article does not. -- —MBlaze Lightning 04:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Come on bro. Please observe fully what those sources are saying.

• From your source 1: (under the section and subsections with explicit headings: Rape as weapon of war and tool of political oppression —> India: Rape in Kashmir —> Rape by Security Forces: The pattern of impunity p129-)

If the authorities had conducted a proper investigation, including a medical examination, then it would be possible to determine the truth about what happened in Kunan Poshpora. The Press Council does not constitute a judicial investigative body, and the severe shortcomings of its visit have been noted above. (emphasis mine) A senior government official familiar with the incident revealed that although the number of women alleged to have been raped may have been inflated, they believed it was likely that several of the women were raped by the soldiers. Even when investigations are ordered, they rarely result in prosecutions...

• From your source 2:

The international human rights’ body (Amnesty International) has prepared a detailed second report, titled “Denied”-Failures in Accountability in Jammu and Kashmir, in 2015. “This impunity is greatly accorded to the security forces by laws like Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1990 (AFSPA) The family members, it reads, are not required to be informed about the status of the sanction. “They often assume that the sanction is denied. Most of the times, the families are not even aware of the procedures to apply for permission to prosecute,” the report says “Similarly, with respect to investigations, an inquiry that is conducted by the same authority accused of the crime raises serious questions about the independence and impartiality of those proceedings,” it says, adding that the international law requires that crimes be investigated by an independent authority that is not involved in the alleged violations.

What about all this? I agree that the security forces' and government's versions are also to be certainly added to the article in appropriate places per WP:NPOV as I did here, but the editors of this article hardly had a week before all this mess happened and some of my brothers here started to take things personal, unfortunately. I know its hard to disentangle our nationalistic feelings from a subject like this, but quoting extracts of security forces' and government's versions in their own defence, citing sources that were specifically written to criticize those very versions, for calling the content from reliable sources in this article as "propaganda" and "heavy bias", appeared quite strange to me. So I simply commented, never mind, mate. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Kashmir conflict is too general. I find this more specific, but that's my two cents.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merge This article documents a specific type of human rights violation that is discussed over time in many reliable sources. I added a few new references to the article myself and I know there are more--that's on top of all the excellent references already in the article! This is a topic that passes GNG, no matter how you feel about and is not a FORK. This is a topic that is being tracked by the Women Under Siege Project and other organizations. Litigation based on alleged mass rapes in 1991 have been filed in 2013: it's an ongoing issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• You are aware that as a matter of English usage, "Rape in the Kashmir insurgency," means "rape within the Kashmir insurgency movement." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming is fine. I oppose a merge, Fowler. This discussion is a little sticky in that there seem to be both issues on the table. I'm not opposed to a name change. I'm opposed to the idea that this is a FORK and should be merged. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you open to the title Sexual violence in Kashmir? In other words, to the idea of starting with a broader ranging title and then spinning off to the more narrow focus, shoud the need arise? You are aware too, though I imagine it doesn't make much difference per WP guidelines, that this page was created some ten days ago, 25 years after reports of some of the incidents had appeared in the press and many years after articles on all those incidents had appeared in WP. The secondary references have been around for over a dozen years. And I imagine that you are also aware that Kashmir appears nowhere in the UN Secretary General's 2016 report on sexual violence in conflict-affected regions that I refer to below, though 19 geographical areas around the word do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose retitling to make titled about anything but sexual violence; I do not take a position on the nuances between "conflict" and "insurgency" other than to note this entire topic is subject to WP:DS. But it is not a WP:CFORK to break out sexual violence above and beyond human rights abuses, per the comments in the next section about women's issues. Montanabw 18:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - There are many reliable sources on the sexual dimension to this conflict, but we should include both sides of the conflict on the same page. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• I have no idea. This is not a Requested Move, this is a war. I don't have half a day to wade through all this. RM nominator's statement consisted of "Controversial page move war despite objections, kindly protect the page move as well". Well how does that help me figure out what the freaken name of the article should be. Or maybe there shouldn't be an article. Or maybe it should be merged. Who knows? Fight among yourself, but leave me out of it. I resent being dragged into this morass by the RM posting. Herostratus (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It is about women

This article is about women, their welfare and violence against them. It is quite unseemly for a bunch of men to sit around a table and discuss whether "rape" should be a subject or not. But that is the situation we are in. I am going to request input from WP:WikiProject Women. But here are my thoughts to start with.

• The article starts by saying rape is being used as a "weapon of war".
• It documents that 11.6% of Kashmiri women have reported being abused.
• Professor William Baker said that it was not indiscipline but a means of cultural subjugation.
• Scholar Dara Kay lists Kashmir among the worst affected of all conflicts including Bosnia and Rwanda.

If people have read all these things, and still insist that this is not a subject and should not have an article of its own, I have to say shame on you guys. This is not an issue of India or Pakistan or Kashmir, but it is about whether we treat women's welfare as a subject. As Misplaced Pages, we do. Supported by enough reliable sources that are treating it as a subject, this article will pass any AfD test. I see no reason to merge. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! My overwhelming and heartfelt respect & support for the above statement. Thank you Kautilya for putting this so straight and subtle. If there is an issue of grammar of English language in the title, we've to work on how to fix it. If there's a problem of not summarising the corresponding content of this article in other broader articles, we should make sure that it should be addressed. But when people say this subject shouldn't have an article on its own, I wonder if they have even read the article throughout, with WP:VERIFYing its content. In case they did and are still asking & endorsing to merge/delete this article, it seriously makes me wonder what kind of world these people, whoever they are, are living in. I have been relentlessly trying to reason with them only because of the faith I still have in the Misplaced Pages community. Best regards to you Kautilya3, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY is the correct way to describe your entire comment and none of it rules out that the article still remains a duplicate and fork that should be merged and redirect on already existing articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Tyler Durden: Since you had brought up the United Nations Office of Sexual Violence in Conflict and suggested that its name and scope were the models for Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict, which you are proposing, let us now examine your points, in light of the UN Office's own published statements:

• "This article is about women":

• (Rejoinder) The UN Secretary General's 2016 report on Sexual Violence in Conflict defines the scope of the term, "The term “conflict-related sexual violence” refers to rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, enforced sterilization, forced marriage and any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity perpetrated against women, men, girls or boys that is directly or indirectly linked (temporally, geographically or causally) to a conflict." The UN had a special session earlier devoted to sexual violence against men and boys in Afghanistan, which is just a stone's throw from Kashmir.

• "rape is being used as a weapon of war"

• (rejoinder) The UN's Office says, here, "Sexual violence) is no longer seen as an inevitable by-product of war, but rather a crime that is preventable and punishable under international human rights law." Note I have suggested all along that this article—created overnight, and with such alacrity and dispatch, that the implications of the article's name were not considered—is a content/POV fork of three existing articles: Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Kashmir, and Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir, none of which are brimming with facts of such reliability as to require spin-offs. In fact, two of the three are stubs, as is the "sexual violence" section of Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir.

• "11.6% of Kashmiri women have reported being abused," and "Kashmir (is) among the worst affected of all conflicts including Bosnia and Rwanda."

• (rejoinder) As the 2011 Indian census, pegged the female population of Kashmir to be 6 million, and since already five years have elapsed, in your telling 600,000 women appear to have been sexually and violently abused in Kashmir. That number is a large number, surely large enough for the UN to notice, for the UN routinely highlights sexual violence involving smaller numbers, such as 250 women in Nigeria (Boko Haram). In fact, the UN Secretary General's 2016 report on Sexual Violence in Conflict does name many country names. Let us examine what they are: In the section "Sexual violence in conflict-affected settings" (page 9), they are: Afghanistan (page 9), Central African Republic (page 10), Columbia (page 11), Democratic Republic of Congo (13), Iraq (14), Libya (15), Mali (16), Myanmar (18), Somalia (18), South Sudan (19), Sudan Darfur (21), Syrian Arab Republic (23), Yemen (24). In the section "Sexual violence crimes in post-conflict settings," they list: Bosnia and Herzgovina (page 24), Cote d'Ivoire (page 25), Nepal (26), Sri Lanka (26). In "Other situation of concern," they list: Burundi (page 27) and Nigeria (27).

• It appears that Kashmir is mentioned nowhere in the report. Again: Kashmir is mentioned nowhere in the report. Are you going to now Google some other UN body to pin your POV fork on? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to now Google some other UN body to pin your POV fork on? No, I am not. Given the UN's abysmal incompetence in dealing with the Kashmir dispute, it matters little to me what the UN says or doesn't say. You are welcome to add the information that the UN reports are silent on Kashmir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean, the UN Secretary General's 2016 Report on Sexual Violence in Conflict—of whose existence I was not aware, but which you informed us was the model of enlightened NPOV nomenclature for your proposed page move—highlights 19 countries, or geographical regions, for occurrence of sexual violence, but fails to mention Kashmir anywhere within its 34 pages, and, having been so informed, (you) are dissociating yourself with the UN's failure in solving the conflict that appeared at its newly chiseled doorstep 70 years ago, and by implication with its predilection for noticing sexual violence everywhere but one green valley in the north of South Asia. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am merely saying that your effort to sweep away all the reliable sources that have been cited using the argument that a particular UN report is silent about it is pretty pompous. The UN has no credibiity with Kashmir. India doesn't let UN anywhere near Kashmir. Even the UNMOGIP observers are confined to their offices in Srinagar. I don't expect the UN to be harbinger of truth on Kashmir matters. It is the least reliable of all possible sources. What it says or doesn't say makes no difference whatsoever. As I said, you are welcome to add the information that the UN report is silent on it, for whatever it is worth. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

And the 19 highlighted countries, all pillars of democracy and openness, have been offering especial protection to the UN representatives wherever they chose to go within their borders? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

To add to Kautilya, even that UNMOGIP was decided to be inoperative in Kashmir, ironically within weeks after 2016 Kashmir unrest started, after India pressurised to do so. Note that:

Stephane Dujarric (UN Secretary General's spokesperson) was also asked why the Secretary General does not initiate efforts to settle the Kashmir conflict, even as the world body is trying to resolve conflicts in Cyprus and the Middle East. “I will leave it to you and others to…to analyse the reasoning. I think the questions on the situation in Kashmir have come up with us today and previously. Our answers to those questions remain the same,” Dujarric said, without elaborating.

---Tyler Durden (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Getting rather tired of the empty arguments that this article is a fork, simply because these following articles (Human rights abuses in Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir) exist. Why are those pages some sort of benchmarks? What happened to WP:GNG and treating the information herein on its own merit? And btw, categorising rape as a "human rights" issue is fraught with flaws as someone noted. Misplaced Pages works on WP:VOLUNTEER, if those articles are found to be lacking info, feel free to update them with a summary of this article. If you're still not satisfied, then press the nuclear button and put up the human rights pages up for WP:AfD. I know some here would not hesitate from that even. Let's see how that ends up. Rather than diverting, it would help if the focus remains on the subject, and determining a suitable title (which was the purpose of this thread anyway). Mar4d (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

You obviously can't AfD those articles since you are yourself their leading contributor since 2012. As for sexual violence, the reference to gang rape by the Indian army was added to the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir page in this edit of 04:12 on 11 September 2012, which was three edits, and four hours later, accepted by you in this edit of 8:13 on 11 September 2012, and thereafter never amended, even though you are the leading contributor to the page with 72 edits. I agree with you, we are all getting tired, but it is precisely because POV-pushers (and you most certainly are not among them, as I can vouch from our long acquaintance on Misplaced Pages), tiring of one page, which has stabilized somewhat, and therefore not receiving the attention it formerly did, are looking for new POV-forks in order to remain in the limelight. That is the main, and really only, problem in this page. As you well know, I am hardly an Indian protagonist in the Kashmir dispute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: I have taken the page off my watchlist. I came here because I felt some general responsibility, having overseen some Kashmir-related articles for ten years. But I see that I'm wasting my time. Please do not ping me here. If you do, I will not respond. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Scope of the article

• Reply: Hi again Tyler. Thanks for the ping. My issue is I just do not see the connect with 1947 events with the post late 80s conflict in Kashmir Valley (there is more than 4 decades of difference!). Women abducted/raped in Jammu and Kashmir back then came under the same repatriation scheme as women abducted elsewhere in India and Pakistan.

  Most recoveries were made from East and West Punjab followed by Jammu, Kashmir and Patiala.

Surely a more suitable place for those events would be in this underdeveloped and much development needing article Violence against women during the partition of India and not an article whose subject matter is trying to follow the pattern in scholarly sources about said matter. Example would be the encyclopediac source used to write this article

For reasons of clarity and consistency this article uses Kashmir to refer to the Valley of Kashmir, also the location of the present conflict. The term Jammu and Kashmir refers to the state as a whole~Gender and Militarization in Kashmir, Seema Kazi, Oxford University Press

Common sources also when talking about sexual violence in Kashmir only think about the current conflict since 1989/1990. For example in the Women Under Siege Project

Soon after the Indian government’s crackdown against Kashmiri insurgents, which started in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel began to surface.

since the inception of armed insurgency in Kashmir, the military approach towards the insurgency has resulted in numerous rapes of innocent women.

So shouldn't we follow that pattern? I still think including a history section will just muddle all the content up. Surely the violence in the current internal conflict in the insurgency plagued region needs separate devoted coverage on an encyclopedia? (Others can still get their own) Problematics (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Brother, we all have had enough of this name-game. I personally support your argument. You can see here that I fought for it, wasting a lot of my time and also others' time. But it doesn't matter what I or you support. We do not have a title we can go with, for our version, though I know it deserves a separate article. Our hurried title of Rape in Kashmir insurgency ended up being wrong English, we should feel embarrassed about it. No appropriate title supports the content on "current internal conflict in the insurgency plagued region", alone. So our best shot is "Sexual violence in Kashmir conflict". No matter how many scholars use it to focus on violence in present insurgency in the valley, there is no way in Misplaced Pages by which we can restrict anyone to add content from throughout the timeline of Kashmir conflict. We are nobody to stop even if one editor wants to do that, as per the title. And there is no loss in it, none of the present content in the article gets disrupted. - This will be the structure of the article. This is not only a middle-ground that I'm proposing, this is the only possible way out of this useless mess. Cheers, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: I understand your frustration bro. Endless argumentation. Its tiring us all out. For this issue I have just thought up another the title. Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1990-present). Misplaced Pages has similar titles on other articles for each of a subject's time period. See. Those who insist on creating one for the 1947-1949 phase can create a page called Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1947-1949). The problem with adding 'here and there' content is that it never stops. If we add an isolated 'first alleged rape in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in which military personnel have been accused' then that would open the door to add cases in Pakistan administered Kashmir such as the alleged rape by Indian troops of girls in a village in Pakistan administered Kashmir back in 2000. Someone could also add an alleged 1984 Sunni-Shia rape case in Srinagar. It won't stop and before we know it the article will become general. But the article is meant to be about one specific conflict only. 1990 Indian administered Kashmir Valley onwards. And thats what the sources this article uses discuss. Problematics (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What's wrong if it opens doors to add all cases related to the whole Kashmir conflict? Every editor has the right to add any of such stuff. I see no problem, the present content, in its separate section, doesn't get disrupted. Sunni-Shia rape cases are not Kashmir conflict-related violence, by the way. Not until any WP:RS indicates so. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well it derails from the article's main topic and paves the path for generality rather than specificity to the conflict. If someone wants too add a collection of isolated cases not specifically part of the 1990s onwards conflict inside the insurgency zone, they should do so on other related pages (of which there are plenty and if not they can make new ones). Not this one if we want to avoid disruptions and going off on tangents. Problematics (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm always open to it. And in that case, you have to gain consensus for the title Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1989-present). Try doing that now. I'll sit back and have my popcorn. Also mind you, this hypothetical article will also have a 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' section with the isolated *2005* BBC case, initially. You can stop nobody from adding it, even with that title. Please keep this in mind before your efforts go in vain. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: if such page move is supported, how much removed(of this diff) content inclusion you will support? I still believe that a separate Pakistan section was enough. Here's my proposal User:Capitals00/Sexual_violence_in_the_Kashmir_conflict (you can edit it too to show your version) Capitals00 (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 — Here you go, mate. And it is not my version. It is the appropriate version as per the title. See my edit summaries for reasons. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Glad to know you made a version on which I can agree too. Capitals00 (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked all the points made above in detail. But my feeling is that if we use Kashmir conflict as the scope, we would have basically two subsections, one on the 1947 conflict and one on the current insurgency. Maybe another one on Pakistan-administered Kashmir but I am not confident that there is enough content there on conflict-related sexual violence. We have to do this basically to avoid WP:POV, the allegation that we are unduly highlighting one party over the others. -

The idea that the reliable sources don't do it this way is not enough of an argument. The sources (either scholarly sources or journalists) are focused on whatever interests them or whatever is of current importance. They don't have an obligation to be encyclopaedic. As I said above, the article is about women, not about any particular conflict or any particular party. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: — Is this structure fine, in your opinion? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not exactly. The "History" should be the "History of the conflict". It needs to describe very briefly what happened in 1947, then mention the wars of 1965 and 1971, and then describe the present insurgency. Recall that the present insurgency was inaugurated with the abduction of Rubaiya Syed, which fits in with the theme of this article. Then the targeted killings of Hindus and pro-India Muslims, the resignation of the civilian government and the calling out of the army. Then the number of casualties over the years.

Then I would want to have a section on the 1947 conflict with known incidents of sexual violence from all sides. The efforts to rescue women should also be covered. Some "stories" such as these , (no idea whether they are true or not).

Then the main section on the present conflict.

I think the Pakistan-administered Kashmir section is no good and should be deleted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: Then please tell to Capitals00 that 'Pakistan administered Kashmir' section would be absurd. I still don't understand why he wants it so badly. There is no present internal conflict in Pakistan administered Kashmir(PAK) like in Indian administered Kashmir(IAK). Keeping that section with one, that too conflict-unrelated, 2005 incident would be indicating that there is very little violence in PAK despite the conflict, unlike in IAK. It is not only WP:UNDUE, but also naive! I'm saying this here, on the same talk page, for the hundredth time! — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Can't the 'history' section be given a new page (Rape in Kashmir Conflict 1947-1949)? That topic can get its own in-depth coverage better there. Oh and I can't find any information on sexual violence in Kashmir in the next two Indo-Pak wars. Unsurprising because the conflict began in 1988.

As I proposed earlier a suitable title for this article would be Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1988-present). Both the scholarly sources and the lead of this article are clear that its the present conflict which is being covered. This page is modeled after its precedents in such as Rape during the occupation of Japan, Rape during the liberation of France and Rape during the occupation of Germany. They all focus on specific times & areas. Adding a history section (with more than 4 decades of gap too!!) here would distract focus from the article's main purpose and discussion. Problematics (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As I have said in the previous section, this article is about women and how their well-being is affected by conflict. It is not about conflicts per se. If you want to talk about conflicts, please use the corresponding conflict articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We need to pay attention to WP:DUE. We can't just add anything about women, it has to be a part of violence against women in this particular conflict the article is set in. What you want to add is not within this article's scope, nor are they in the sources used for this article. Your proposed content is better suited for Violence against women during the partition of India or in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. If added here it takes attention away from violence against women in the present conflict. Which is different to the historic content from 4 decades prior to its beginning! We wouldn't add content from here to Violence against women during the partition of India or in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 and we should not do the reverse either, it would be WP:UNDUE. Problematics (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You are rehashing your !vote again. There is no need to do so, because I have read it the first time you wrote it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape in Kashmir Conflict (1988-present) is also a good option for title of the article as it is specific cause the all the rapes after 1988 were done in Indian administered Kashmir. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think during is a better word than 'in'. Though there is a page called in Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency during is the word in most other pages' titles in the Wartime sexual violence category. Problematics (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't anyone think, choosing the title Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1988-present) is too embarrassing and meaningless? Wars and conflicts have stages, and hence the timelines. But why the acts of violence themselves in a conflict have to be separated in timelines, beforehand? We do not have an article with the title Kashmir conflict (1988-present), and we want to name an article as Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1988-present)! Doesn't this create ambiguity to the readers? And more importantly, this may probably lead to many objections and huge opposition to the existence of the article by other Wikipedians in future, who can easily point towards the problematic title. Please keep this in mind. Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Splitting a subject by time periods is done when the subject is too big to fit into a single article. That is not the case here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Bina D'Costa (4 October 2016). Children and Violence: Politics of Conflict in South Asia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 24–. ISBN 978-1-316-67399-7.
2. Sukeshi Kamra (2002). Bearing Witness: Partition, Independence, End of the Raj. University of Calgary Press. pp. 316–. ISBN 978-1-55238-041-3.
3. Praveen Swami (19 October 2006). India, Pakistan and the Secret Jihad: The Covert War in Kashmir, 1947-2004. Routledge. pp. 224–. ISBN 978-1-134-13752-7.
4. Taisha Abraham (2002). Women and the Politics of Violence. Har-Anand Publications. pp. 131–. ISBN 978-81-241-0847-5.
5. Pervez, Ayesha. "The long struggle against systematic rape in conflict-ridden Kashmir".
6. "Conflict And Rapes In Kashmir".
7. Kaare Sørensen (7 June 2016). The Mind of a Terrorist: David Headley, the Mumbai Massacre, and His European Revenge. Arcade Publishing. pp. 162–. ISBN 978-1-62872-545-2.
8. Khuram Iqbal (30 October 2015). The Making of Pakistani Human Bombs. Lexington Books. pp. 55–. ISBN 978-1-4985-1649-5.
9. The Illustrated Weekly of India. October 1985. p. 56.

Let us please think sensibly, reach a reasonable compromise, and end this asap, so that we all can focus on writing the article. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The scope of the article should be restricted to sexual violence against women in indian administered Kashmir since 1988 because thats how all the scholarly and common sources treat the subject.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

According to many scholarly sources, they have also mentioned sexual violence in Pakistan's Kashmir in this conflict and since 1947, there's no reason to censor any of that. I found anothersource (says Human Rights Watch reported sexual violence by Pakistani troops in 2006) just now. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Your source cites two references: This paper by Bastick, Grimm & Kunz (p. 97) and this 2006 HRW report. The Bastick paper contains a line about "sexual violence" by Pakistani security forces against "Kashmiri detainees", and cites the same HRW report (p. 53). When I opened p. 53 from HRW, the passage that followed it quoted an incident about a male detainee (under interrogation) being stripped naked and having chillies shoved in his rectum. Ordinarily, this would qualify as torture or human rights abuse. Though calling it rape (and wording it as such) would be factually misleading, and a stretch even for this article. So just to those for inclusion of Azad Kashmir, please be thorough with your sources. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Do you have an opinion on what the title should be now, given that the Rape in Kashmir insurgency happened to be wrong English? As you can see, after all the endless fights here, Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict and Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict (1988-present) are on the table at present. Which one do u support among these? --- Tyler Durden (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Tyler Durden: I think Rape during the Kashmir conflict could be an appropriate and neutral title. It would follow the precedent of other similar articles. Although as far as the primary scope of this article is concerned, my position hasn't changed. I don't establish any connection between the post-insurgency rapes and the 47 war. The former are a human rights issue related to the ongoing conflict, and part of a pattern of HRVs. When sections like Mughal era, 1947 war era or Azad Kashmir rapes will start being added, the article's context will get lost somewhere in the galaxy. Anyone who wants to discuss rape incidents in Pakistani Kashmir can easily go edit the AJK HRV article. Mar4d (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support renaming to Sexual violence in the Kashmir conflict as more inclusive of the various types of sexual violence used against men, women and children in conflict areas. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.