Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 1

Hi

Honestly, there isn't a neutral view. I am an Indian, and I agree to most of the points in the article but to expect Pakistanis to agree on it is a bit too much. There will be no neutral artilce on Kashmir - for quite some time - probably my lifetime.

editing

I have just started editing and expanding the article . I have made it a point that the neutrality of the article be maintained . I hope that other editors also keep that in mind .Thanks --IncMan 16:20, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not submit articles which look like news article rather than that of an encyclopedia and maintain a neutral pt. of view . --IncMan 23:57, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

Sorry, folks, but I don't think this is going to work. You can't just take a copyrighted work, copy it into a WP article, and then refactor it to mitigate the copyvio. All that does is make it harder to detect the copyvio. It remains a derivative work. We need to roll back, and I am pretty sure I picked the right version when doing my previous revert. Rl 17:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Baseless edits

• The article is neutral by all means. Even if the militias have a sepratists ideology, they use terrorism to achieve their goals and they are rightfully called as terrorists. For those who still argue with these militias being called as terrorists, I think in that case, they should also object the Islamic militias or jihadis in Iraq and Palestine/Israel being called as - terrorists. Articles like Terrorism in Iraq are more biased than this one. I don't say that their ideology is wrong, I am no one to decide on that. But the means they use to achieve their goals is wrong. No concrete reasons are provided for calling the article biased.
• It is well proven, and not alleged, that Kashmiri militias especially those belonging to Lashkar have close links to Al-Qaeda; one of the main reasons for the organisation being banned in the US.
• Some of the terrorists do have a national interest. JKLF is the only major terrorist outfit demanding for a free kashmir. Rest all, including Lashkar and Jaish, are in the favour of Kashmir being a part of pakistan. Hence calling some of these militias as pro-Pakistan is justified.
• The terrorists use the term Jihad for mentioning their struggle and hence Waging Jihad is more opt title for section concerned. Regarding the sub-section of Who are these terrorists, I think that the title is most opt as the section provides info regarding the terrorists background. There are no allegations against the terrorists in the section.

To end, if some still object to the seprationists being called as terrorist's, then they should also object to the title given to this article (i.e. Terrorism in Kashmir). Those who cause terrorism are called terrorists and not 'freedom fighters'. Thanks --IncMan 19:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Not all separatists excercise "terrorism" and you can not generalize between different organizations. Just because other articles are biased does NOT mean that this one must be. You can not say that if separatists are at war with India they are terrorists. Not all separatists might even be Muslim, how can you say that they are all "waging Jihad" without actually verifying this. This article is written from an Indian POV and that is very noticable. Perhaps the human rights violation and state terrorism that Indian soldiers have committed should also be added to this article. Also, if some militias are pro-Pakistani then maybe you should clarify that instead of generalizing and covertly implying that they are all hired by Pakistan in order to fight the "innocent" Indian soldiers. Also, calling all the organizations "terrorist", when there are so many is wrong and you know that. This article is undeniably disputed and non-neutral, surely you can see that, so it should be tagged. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 16:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my comments. I don't say that all separationists are terrorists. For example the Hurriyat Conference; though serparatists they use peaceful ways to achieve their goals and the article does mention that. Again, by terrorists I refer to those people who cause terrorism irrespective of their being separationists or Pakistani or Indian. How about an article on Kashmiri Freedom Movement. That will be great. Plus, the very reason why I have put this article for Peer Review is that the article can be made more neutral. Please, if you can, mention the human rights abuses done by Indian soldiers. As suggested, I have removed some biased external links. The article at no point says that Pakistan HIRES these terrorists; It only mentions that India alleges Pakistan for supporting these terrorists. Besides the article also includes what Pakistan has to say in its defence to such charges. I don't know whether the freedom movement in Kashmir is justified or not, but certainly theres no need to mention much about it in this article as it is about the terrorism and not the ongoing freedom struggle. You declare yrself to be a strong advocate of neutrality but yr anti-India viewpoint (as in the comment left above) says it all. Thanks --IncMan 16:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an anti-India viewpoint (I even have a few Indian friends). You can not say that simply because I disagree with having an article in a 100% Indian POV, that I am anti-India. The main reason I am here is because this article, like many other India-related ones, is one-sided and should mention all sides of the story. I stick by what I said before, hope that the peer review will help, and also that you will mention the other sides of the story in order to avoid inserting bias. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I have made some edits to make the article look a bit more neutral. Thanks --IncMan 12:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Allright. I look forward to seeing the article after you have made it a bit more neutral. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 19:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Reasons for reverts-

1. Pakistani forces are not among those targeted by the insurgents. Those killed are only due to cross-border firing and not due to terrorists acts. 2. Saying that giving Pakistan the entire Kashmir will be the fullfillment of the issue is a POV. 3. Saying that ALL Kashmiris would object Kashmir being a part of India is again a POV. Many Muslim Kashmiris do support India. The popularity of pro-Indian political parties like the ruling PDP and National Conference proves that. 4. Hindus and Buddhists form the majority of the population in Jammu and Ladakh respectively. It would be better if you could discuss all the points which in yr eyes are biased, so that we could collectively and constructively make necessary changes. Thanks --IncMan June 29, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

Before tackling the issue of NPOV, let us eliminate the inaccuracies. I suggest that those editors who believe that there are inaccuracies in the article, list those errors here as simple bullet points, without reference to who supports any POV. Each point should refer to a specific section, paragraph and sentence(s). I suggest that you do not sign these points. Please do not comment on the identified "errors" until we are agreed that there are no more to list. We can then identify the individual disputes and tackle them separately. I now open the floor (Theo (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)):

I see this article totally neutral. The fact is the Pakistani Military looses it importance if the truth that Jammu Kashmir is a State of India is accepted by Pak. There will be no reason for Pak army to interfere in the governance and democracy of Pak. Even the People of Pak know this. The arguments that this is not a neutral article is baseless. Some more facts showing the secular nature and respect of India for neighbours. Nepal, though a Hindu state has always remained free from any Indian interference of any kind. Bhutan is another example. The very foundation of India is multicultural, multilingual and secular. The proof for this is India Lost its one of the Brightest PM Late Rajiv Gandhi defending Sri Lanka against the Tamilians (LTTE) of Indian origin.

== I see this article as Baised as it can get. ==

All the refrences are from India. Not a single referance baised on any Neutral. Who gives you the right to think your self as a totaly object person being this closley associated with the whole issue. Not a single reference that makes the baises of the Article is Neutral. You can't just qoute and refer to Baised people and baised work and term the result as totaly NEUTRAL. And where is the more neutral artical as you promised. --Samnan 05:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

List of Inaccuracies

• 3rd paragraph in recent developments section reads "... blamed the Pakistani military for cover-firing the militants...". shld be "blamed the pakistani military for providing covering fire for the militants ...".

• i agree that the possible solutions section does not belong in this article. the solutions mentioned may each not stop terrorism by groups who advocate another of the solutions. eg., terrorists who support kashmir's absorbtion into pakistan may not stop if kashmir is made independent. further, the views ascribed to muslims, hindus and buddhists are unsupported by any sources.

• the revaluation section : the opening paragraph reads better if changed to "many(?) of the terrorist groups portray their struggle as also a religious one."

As suggested, I've made apporpiate corrections. The possible solutions section is just an attempt to answer the question: just how can the Kashmir dispute be solved peacefully. I don't understand the main reason behind people favouring the removal of the section. Thanks --IncMan 22:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Kashmir, as a political dispute between the involved parties, viz., India, Pakistan, the people of kashmir is a problem with potential solutions, such as the ones listed. The solution to terrorism in kashmir, on the other hand, is no terrorism in kashmir :). wisecracks aside, steps to stop terrorism wld be along the lines of

• better control, review over operations of the security forces
• redressal of kashmiri's civic grievences by well run local govenrment,
• withdrawal of covert support to terrorist organisations by pakistan
• securing the LoC by both government forces to prevent infilteration.

and

• a resolution to the political dispute.

the distinction between "legitimate" political struggles and terrorism must be retained, and where the dividing line is not clear, an attempt be made to find one, rather than merge the two. to suggest simply that resolution of the political dispute is the way to solve the terrorism problem suggests that terrorism is proper means to fight political disputes, a very significant conclusion, fraught with danger.

Okay, I get yr point. But the political dispute over Kashmir is the main reason for the existance of these terrorist organisations. Resolving the political dispute is the best way to end the terrorism. Kudos to Indian soldiers who try so hard to check terrorism. No military force has the capability to handle terrorism better than Indian troops; the main reason why US was so eager to convince India to send its troops to Iraq. However, no matter how hard India tries, monitoring the entire Kashmir is practically impossible. Well, terrorism is definitely not a proper mean to end the political disputes but in Kashmir it seems to be the perfect weapon. --IncMan 11:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The possible solutions section

This should be removed from here, first it is more appropriate in Kashmir article and not in terrorism article, and second, it is simplistic. It talks about a very complicated conflict in about 4-5 lines. Moreover it is POV and mentions opinions of Kashmiris(!) without refering to any opinion polls. 128.125.20.94 29 June 2005 19:11 (UTC)

I agree with you about the relocation of the section. It's a better fit for the Kashmir article. Frankly I think that is the most balanced that section can get. It used to be very pro-Indian but I have tried to make it a little more neutral. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussion or giving views. So this particular section should certainly go. Please put facts and not assumptions on possible solution. Whatever is not let out by any of the goverment should not be put in here. How about another solution of giving the J & K to china. See what i mean.

Films and Books

Ok, I would like to get some clarification on the "Films" section, here are 2 questions I have:

• "Sarfarosh" : So far as I remember, the movie doesn't mention Kashmir. True, the main villain was a Pakistani agent disguised as a poet, but the movie seems to be associated at most to the western desert regions of India-Pakistan border. So, where does the Kashmir issue come into the movie? Or was it something I missed?

• "Dil Se": Wasn't the movie based on Assam or some other North-Eastern Indian state?

There are many many movies about Kashmir problem, but naming the wrong movies would be a bad thing. So, please clarify the above 2 points. --Ragib 12:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are right in saying that Sarfarosh had nothing to do with Kashmiri insurgency. Regarding Dil Se, I saw the movie twice, visit this link to check whether it was about NE or Kashmir: [1] --IncMan 14:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you are right about "Dil Se". I have watched the movie quite some time ago. But as you said, "sarfarosh" is clear of Kashmir issues. Thanks. --Ragib 14:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Unbelievable! Even links to books get constantly edited out on this page. I don't see why M J Akbar's book on Kashmir (which is largely historical in nature) should not be allowed in the links? Disgraceful conduct.

NPOV tag

I think most the doubts regarding the neutrality of the article are settled. If anyone still has objections regarding the removal of this tag, please state your objection with the reason behind it below. Thanks --IncMan 16:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article?

Now since the NPOV tag has been removed, I think nominating this article for FA status wouldn't be a bad idea. But still a lot of work needs to be done-

• We need more images. At present both the images have no info on their copyright status.
• At some places the article does mix-up between seperatists and terrorists. If someone could help me sought it out.. id appreciate it.
• Any other suggestions?

Thanks --IncMan 23:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Are you joking me? This is one of the most biased articles in wikipedia and you know that. With all due respect, this is one of the last articles that should be FA. Thanks, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Look whose back that too with a bang. If you find anything biased in this article sought it out. Its about time that u've contributed to wikipedia in a constructive manner. Just tagging articles as POV doesn't help. I think article is fairly biased but often opinions dont match. Also, stop yr argumentative tone. Tx --{{IncMan|talk}} 05:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the reason the POV tag with reason was added is upon request by user Jules LT who said tht people don't know enough about this issue to know what part of it is POV.

Secondly the article is very POV. Frankly, you don't even have to go past the first line in the article before finding out the bias:"Jammu and Kashmir has been the target of a campaign of terrorism and militancy propagated against India by all sides of the conflict."

Are you telling me that out of over 100,000 kashmiris killed India had nothing do with it? India isn't committing terrorism against India (as shown by the quote), it is committing it against Kashmiris. It is absurd to say that India is a peacemaker in the region because that basically what the article is trying to say; "The evil Islamic terrorists vs. the peace-loving Indian military." There are numerous sources which indicate state and military terrorism committed by India against Kashmiris, human rights violations and massacres of entire villages by Indian "security".

If we are going to cover up the war crimes committed by India in the region, why don't we just deny the holocaust while we are at it?

Therefore I propose that we do a complete rewrite of the article. You, me and other editors who can represent Kashmiri, Pakistani, and indian view. That way we can eliminate the bias from the article. How about it? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Kashmiris are Indians. My parents are from Jammu and they r proud to be Indians and I am proud of my Indian roots. Regarding the issue of state terrorism by India, listen to this, in 1991, a Kashmiri family living just 2 houses away from our house in Jammu provided asylum to terrorists who planted a bomb in a nearby Sabzi Mandi(food mart) killing 4 people. The following day the Indian Army stormed their house killing the terrorists. But in that operation, two of the civilians living in that house were also killed. Kashmiri seperatist parties made a big issue out of it claiming the Indian Army anti-Kashmiri. Look into the London shooting incident which happened just a week after London bombings. An innocent Brazilian man was killed. Now, I dont hear anyone sayin that the British govt. is anti-Brazil. I visit Jammu atleast once in every 2 years and I know what the situation is like out there. Its only the Indian Army which can handle the present crisis. Kashmir is worse than Iraq, but still the number of Kashmiris being killed is less than the number of Iraqis being killed. Everyday so many innocent Iraqis are killed by the US Army. I dont blame the US for that; its easy for the terrorist to point out an enemy soldier but its not easy for soldier to point out a terrorist or suicide bomber. Now, I dont say that all Indian Army soldiers are good. Look at the Abu Gharaib prisoner abuse case; you cant blame the entire US military for that! Same goes for the Indian Army too. Also note that Jammu and Kashmir is democratic state unlike Azad Kashmir. Last year, the J & K govt. arrested Indian Army soldiers for carrying out human rights abuses in the state. By saying that the Indian govt supports terrorism you r insulting all those kashmiris who have voted the present govt to power! Frankly, I have lots of work to do and it would be impossible for me to devote enough time and check the changes you do to the article. All I hope is that you would understand what Im tryin to say. Thanks --{{IncMan|talk}} 21:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, many Kashmiris would take offence to being called Indian; they are not. Secondly, it is not completely unknown that the Indian army carried out operations in Kashmir that completely massacred entire groups of Kashmiris. Also, these are not isolated incedents in which Indian soldiers kill Kashmiris, they are ordered to. Now I am not saying that the separatists, terrorists, etc. don't cause violence; they do, but it is riduculous to say that they kill more people than the Indian soldiers. You said Also note that Jammu and Kashmir is democratic state unlike Azad Kashmir. what good is democracy if you really have no power against the occupier. Note that is the same way in Iraq. You also said, by saying that the Indian govt supports terrorism you r insulting all those kashmiris who have voted the present govt to power! That is absurd and you know it. The present government does not have power over the military; India does. So obviously any terrorism committed by the military will be blamed on India. Still, it really is a shame that you won't be able to spend time on this article, but I hope you will not simply revert my edits blindly next time. I am not here to make a Pakistani POV or Indian POV or Kashmiri POV, I simply want to balance the article since it is in a terrible shape currently. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, if this article does become a featured article (which i don't think will happen) then it would result in number of similar articles like "Terrorism in Sri Lanka" or even "Terrorism by al Quaeda". I think as a matter of policy it would result in chaos and confusion. Before making this as a featured article why not try to make Kashmir the FA status. That is already a challenge that exists. Idleguy 06:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

How can one maintain neutrality, when whole page is full of Indian view? Facts are written to favor Indian without mentioning their genuine grievance of Kashmiri’s.

The genuine grievance of the Kashmiris is mentioned. And pl stop making baseless edits to the article and provide source for every piece of information you add otherwise yr edit will be reverted. --{{IncMan|talk}} 17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

IncMan, you dont blame the US Soldiers for killing Iraqi Civilians? Suppose one of your family member was gunned down by an Indian Soldier in Kashmir because he had a suspicious disposition. Like you said, its not easy to tell the difference. Would you feel proud of your Indian roots then? Would you walk up to him and say we all make mistakes come have some tea? Or would you wage a war against the Indian Army? I bet you'd do the latter, I bet you'd rush to at the nearest Terrorist Training Facility, and signup without a blink, since they are located so conveniently all over Kashmir and Pakistan like you said. What if your family member is not killed, but raped. I bet the Indian roots wouldnt warrant much pride then, would it? Please think about this because this is whats been going on over there. Before writing such a biased article for useless attention and self promotion, do consider the actual events that have been taking place. Make room for some flexibility, not like any Kashmiri would actually read this, but be fair to them. Maybe theres a reason the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters or "terrorists" are so pissed at India.

Yes, I would still be proud of my indian roots because those same Indian army soldiers kill tens of terrorists everyday and hence indirectly save the lives of thousands of Kashmiris. Why do people always talk about the number of civilians who unfortunately come across the line of fire between the insurgents and army. Why not talk about the number of insurgents killed by the Indian army. And u know what, my mother's close friend was killed in road-side bomb in anantnag, not far from jammu. Her son didnt pick up a weapon a waged a war against the insurgents. Indian army kills civilians unintensionally, but those insurgents kill innocent civilians for a free kashmir. Wat a freedom fight is this? Killing Kashmiris in order to create a Free Kashmir! Those insurgents have differences w/ the Indian security forces.. then why was that road-side bomb planted in a residential area miles away from the nearest military complex? I know a lot about Kashmir and I am also very well aware of wats happenin over there. I support the Indian Army not because of the fact that I have Indian roots, but because those men leave their homes and fight like heros unlike those coward insurgents. To end, 80,000 people have died in last decade in Kashmir. These figures do not include thousands of Indian army soldiers who lost their lives battling insurgency. Wat about their family members? hey u knw wat, that Indian killed my family member so lets kill all the Indians... Insane, barbaric and uncivilised.. thats all I can say --{{IncMan|talk}} 22:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon, your statement, "I bet you'd rush to at the nearest Terrorist Training Facility" reflects your mentality and if u do bet on such stupid statements no wonder you might lose your shirt someday. Not every muslim has to become a terrorist like you wish and not all those are wronged become murderers themselves as you so pathetically desire. Please make edits and use the talk page for discussing specifics or general issues on the article per se and not as an internet forum. Tx Idleguy 04:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

He said nothing about Muslims idleguy. Let's not turn this into a religious issue or an issue about which side is actually committing terrorism. Also all of you should read WP:NPA. Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Lol, are you the defender of faith or what? :) Where exactly did I make a "personal attack"? The worst was probably "stupid statements" Was there a verbal abuse against him? Well, maybe if you are here to just follow what I'm going to say, it might sound so. The chiding was only his statement which seemed purile, not the person. I think you are confusing the issue and person here. I just responded to his allegations rubbishing his view that if a person is wronged like in Kashmir they will ALL turn to terrorism. Also I'll have you let you know that kashmir is a majority muslim state and he indirectly implied that they (muslims) all turn to terrorism (citing Iraq and Kashmir) since everyone knows their religious backgrounds. He implicittly meant muslims. So get YOUR facts rights before trying to sound holier than anybody. I never ever made any attacks against any religion, so don't snowball this unnecessarily.

From what I can deduct, you either support his views on 'how to become a terrorist' or you are here just to argue (and use this as some sort of forum). Either way, I don't like to continue this any further. I'll just continue making article edits instead of wasting my time here. Tx and G'bye. And I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone's sentiments with my statements. Idleguy 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

IncMan, dont be silly. The Indian Army has nothing to do with saving Kashmiris. The Indian Government has its own hidden agendas, its a war for land. The Soldiers are there to make sure the Kashmiris keep fearing India, since most Kashmiris want independence and others want to join Pakistan. None of them even want to become part of India and you know it. India fears a Kashmiri uprising. Please dont be so naive, why would India invest so much time, effort and resources if there wasnt anything there in return? You think every terrorist incident that takes place in Kashmir or India is sponsored by Pakistan. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Any clue? The Freedom Fighters do not kill Kashmiris, the only purpose for their existence is to rid Kashmir of Indian Soldiers. Its true, some do turn bad, but the premise remains unchanged. You think Kashmiris are killed by the Indian Army unintentionally, okay fine I can buy that. But how do you explain the rape and looting that goes on over there? You think an Indian Soldier rapes a Kashmiri Civilian because he thought it was a Terrorist? Please make more sense. Just because its your Army or your Government does not warrant it being flawless. Please accept the facts. I can tell your biased opinions are based on fiction, so its useless to argue with you anymore. You know too little and contradictions confuse you. The the vulnerable mind - indoctrinated by the media and the system of imposed ignorance known as education - tends to surrender itself uncritically to second hand viewpoints. Do me a favor, think about it and form an opinion which is for once unbiased. eth.P

IdleGuy: Allow me to make some personal attacks and judgements of my own. Imagine all the investment of the best brains in history into the realms of Metaphysics, when faith and rationality were mutually exclusive. You could have saved Socrates' life, or maybe saved Huxley a life time of futile pursuits. I dont even owe you an explanation, but what the hell. First of all, the remark I made about signing up for a Terrorist was "SARCASM." Given your incapability to tell the obvious, I am guessing you dont even know what that means, so please look it up. You people keep stressing on how these fictitious Training Camps are located everywhere and they harbor and train terrorists and send them to Kashmir to kill civilians and Indians. This is actually not true. Its not an army, people dont sign up, get trained and get drafted. Secondly, I never said everyone whose wronged by the Indian Soldiers will join the Freedom Fighters or "Terrorists" as you'd like to call them, but its enough to sway their opinion, they cant be expected to root for India. The Freedom Fighters who risk their lives day in and day out, and fight off the Indian Army are doing this because they believe in something passionately and wholeheartedly and that belief was not fed to them by anyone, they see what the Indian Army is doing in Kashmir and they decide to do whatever possible to put a stop to it. Please do not indulge in semantical quackery either. Your naivette, more than anything else, shines through. Along with ineptitude. Please refrain from forming opinions about me and elaborating on my point of views for me, what I said earlier was very clear cut. If its not acceptable to the general public, thats their problem. It still holds true. Dont blame me for your own limited capacities my dear imbecile. Don't waste google time trying to compose a retort either, since I won't be reading them due to my chronic distaste for unoriginal invective. eth.P

              This talk is total rubbish, for I think none of you have ever even visited Kashmir. Anantnag is not near Jammu. It is 250 kms beyond the Pir Pinjal. It is different than Jammu. Which Kashmiri can be proud of India after the latter has unleashed its almost total war machinery to control a couple of thousand insurgents. Isn't Indian Army controlling the Kashmiris instead...

Pl. quote the POV statements here

POV disputes are meant to be resolved. I've requested all who feel that this article doesn't conform to NPOV to quote the exact statements in order here. If the statements/opinions are without sources it should be solved to a large extent. Let's get a move ahead. I actually feel that there are a lot of incidents of terrorist activity that's missing and a few biased editors don't want to take the article forward but keep it as POV. Everyone else can list the actionable statements here. Tx Idleguy 19:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Before you start going on a revert war again over the neutrality tag, here are some of the statements which are pro-Indian or otherwise objectionable.

• Thousands of lives have been lost since 1989 in Indian-administered Kashmir due to the intensified insurgency - Did Indian soldiers not kill any civilains. Very POV to ignore the massacres committed in kashmiri villages by the Indian army.

• The year 1989 saw the intensification of conflict in Jammu and Kashmir as Mujahadeens from Afghanistan slowly infiltrated the region following the end of the Soviet-Afghan War the same year. Please source this with a neutral non-Indian nationalist source.

• On the whole, there are more than two dozen active terrorist organisations in Kashmir along with several other smaller militant organizations. - Calling all separatist organizations "terrorist" is POV and you can not do this on every wikipedia article.

• Waging Jihad - title of section is POV to begin with because not everyone is fighting against indian army for religious reasons, the groups might just want to separate.

• It is not only the Kashmiri pundits who have suffered in ongoing insurgency, many Muslims have also been killed in Kashmir over the years. According to Indian government estimates, 6880 Kashmiri muslims have been killed from 1989 to 1998 compared to 8370 Hindus, although most human rights organisations put the figure of the number killed since the late 80's at 70,000 which also includes those killed by Indian security forces. Notice that POV organization of the sentence. Mostly Muslims have died in Kashmir, not Hindus.

• It is hard to determine the total number of casualties due to the ongoing terrorism in Kashmir. According to a report by the Government of India in the year 2000, 31,000 Indian civilians had lost their lives due to the insurgency. Human rights groups and local NGOs put the total figure at more than 50,000 (2000 figure).[14] Terrorism had reached its peak in 1994 when the region saw more than 6,043 terrorist incidents and has since declined. However, Kashmir continues to remain as the most volatile region in the world with an average of 2,500 terrorist incidents every year. - How about telling us how many kashmiris lost their lives. What were "Indian civilians" doing in Kashmir???

Aside from this, the article is all about Indian sources. It is completely one side of the story from an Indian perspective. What about all the trouble India has caused the kashmiris? The statistics section is completely that of the research and analysis wing of India only.

I feel sorry for you that you can't just let the wikipedia community know that this has a pro-Indian bias. Now perhaps you can explain what statements are "pro-terrorist" as you keep adding that to the neutrality tag? Thanks. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

AE, its easy to argue. Would it be too hard to have an endless discussion on why Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall?

• The article does state that the Indian Army has carried out human rights abuses in the past. Giveme one non-Kashmiri seperatist and non-Pakistani source saying that Indian troops massacred Kashmiris. U'll notice all neutral sources saying that civilians were killed because of a fight between the insurgents and the army. none of them will accuse the army of deliberately killing Kashmiris.
• Perhaps u should read this page on the PBS website. I can give u several sources linking Kashmir to the Soviet-invasion of Afghanistan. Read this page by hrw. Read this article too by a Pakistani reporter about Taliban's support to these insurgents.
• Nobody is saying that all separatist org are terrorist org. The line says there are 2 dozen terrorist organisations, not all seperatist org are terrorist org. Read the information given on Hurriyat Conference.
• The term Waging Jihad is taken from BBC's article on Kashmir. Most terrorist groups (this article is on the terrorists in Kashmir and not separatists) use that term to fuel their campaign. The section is basically on the ideology of these insurgents and the methods by which they gather support.
• if you look at previous versions of the article, I wrote a much higher figure for the number of muslims killed but somebody changed it. Ill change the sentence and put in verifiable figures once I get time.
• Again, Kashmiris living in J&K are civilians of the Republic of India, and just one country's denial (i.e. Pakistan) in accepting it doesn't change reality/fact.

To end, the article is on the terrorist organistaions operating in Kashmir. No country (except Pakistan) recognises the Indian Army as an terrorist organisation. Wikipedia is neither a Kashmiri separatist run website nor is it funded by Islamabad. So we will not consider Pakistan's ridiculous, unjustified claims. --{{IncMan|talk}} 01:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'll see how your arguments are mainly straws with a few valid ones that need to be addressed.
• Pl read the article title for this is not about the violations or excess of Indian Army in Kashmir but terrorism in kashmir. Despite this the subheading "human rights violations" does include this fact of atrocities blamed on Indian troops for which a few have been punished too. But as ususal, you didn't READ it and expect others to do the reading for you.
• The Hizbul Mujahideen is among the earliest terrorist groups formed by Pakistan (as its HQ is still in Muzaffarabad). Also the line has been sourced from BBC, if you care to READ, i.e. Or should I give you the exact line number too?
• I've corrected that line since not all sepratists are terrorists in Kashmir. But most of them are, with even USA and Pakistan denouncing atleast half a dozen kashmiri terrorist outfits.
• I've changed that to "Groups Waging Jihad".
• Your statements are POV too, so start analysing yours before trying to sound like a neutral critic. The line begins so because of the previous one that talked about Hindus being ethinically elminated, thus the flow goes from Hindus to muslims, not because its POV as your own eager bias suggests.
• This part of your question again reeks nothing but a blatant bias and lack of ground knowledge on many of the subcontinent subjects. What do you mean "What were Indian civilians doing in Kashmir?" Its part of India and the civilians refers to the administrative machinery including but not limited to economic activity like banking, industry etc. Kashmiris are Indian civilians not american citizens. It could either include their count as per official figures or if it is excluded then the figures should gladly be included since they are still Indian civilians. How would that be POV? Do some research and get data instead of tagging everything for the sake of doing so.
• Now that all your objections have been solved, can you tell me how it still is a biased article? Newsreports are the same if reported by indian media sources or pakistani or neutral ones. And yes, the stats are from RAW since ISI won't publish them. But the very fact that Musharraf-Bush combine is going after these (or sister terror groups) terrorist camps in Pakistan himself is proof of their existence. So don't use straw arguments and try to get away with it.
• If there are no more objections, then I'll have to remove the POV tag; and the article still has a LOT of gaps on the terrorist activities, which is nothing but a POV. Remember lack of knowledge or deleting information (like you do in related articles) is still a bias. Idleguy 03:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still unsurprising to see that your arguments haven't changed. They are very much the same POV, blaming the entirety of the war on separatists who you call "terrorists" and then protecting select Kashmiris whom you refer to as "Indians". Still you haven't shown anything that identifies the article as pro-terrorist. Instead you are actually denying that Indian forces have committed war crimes in the region? Why don't we just cover up the holocaust too?

I think perhaps the only way you people will learn the meaning of neutrality is through a similar scenario is if USA takes over India and then refers to them as Americans and then blames any attrocities our forces commit on Indian "terrorists". Over and over again, both Idleguy and guptadeepak seem to think that having an article that resembles nothing more than a Indian nationalist site is encyclopedic. Perhaps relying on something better than hardline nationalist sites will give you better knowledge on the issue and then maybe you will stop making every attack you get on Pakistan and Kashmiris. Remember replacing information with POV, like idleguy does, is still a bias. Gupta said "giveme one non-Kashmiri seperatist and non-Pakistani source saying that Indian troops massacred Kashmiris." Well, here you go gupta: [2]; read the section on extrajudicial killings by Indian troops. The tag is there for a reason and has been there for the majority of the article's history, whether you admit or don't admit on the Indian bias in this article; removing the tag single-handedly will call for arbitration against you. Also, Idleguy, please look up the meaning of "state terrorism" before you embarass yourself again and again. And next time please answer my objections rather than just diverting the argument. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, shows your level of reading ability. The state terrorism was already converted into "state sponsored terrorism" and would have been copyedited atleast a day before, but for your obstinate reverts. It shows that it is useless to argue with people who don't READ and reach their own biased conclusions. I think that wherever you ask, it seems to be a problem of yours to link in the holocaust issue that shows you know little outside that sphere. Nobody denies indian atrocities as it is already mentioned, but what you know about READING before writing replies that expose your knowledge or, lack of thereof.

your statement "blaming the entirety of the war on separatists who you call "terrorists" and then protecting select Kashmiris whom you refer to as "Indians"." is beginning to throw your real bias in full color. If you think that the world should call ALL kashmiris as terrorists just because some chose violence, then it shows ur naivity. Just like all muslims are not terrorists, so is the case here. So while those who are terrorists will be called so (irrespective of their citizenship), civilians can only be termed as civilians, and if the civilians of a region are in one country, they are obviously called as citizens of X nation. Maybe its time to analyse what's wrong with you.

BBC is a hardline nationalist site? ROFLMAO. News sites that contain news stories (not editorials) does not really fall as a biased external site. Get your knowledge of neutrality updated.

You've still not proven why the pro-indian bias tag should exist given the changes made by me in the article. Also historical existence of a tag does not mean it is to be preserved for posterity. The tag reflects one POV, i.e. your own POV that it has an Indian bias and you have single-handedly tried to suppress the re-tagging. Tags are meant to improve the article, not otherwise. The statements in the talk page is sufficient evidence of this "pro-terrorist bias" and i would welcome any arbitration. Especially since the opponent is someone who doesn't READ sources, here or elsewhere. Tx Idleguy 04:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Surpress retagging. Perhaps you should explain why separating India completely from terrorism is not POV despite the source I have given you which is impartial. And who's calling kashmiri's terrorists? You are, not me. You are saying that those who resist Indian occupation are terrorist and those who don't are not. Please stop biasing the article anymore because your lack of knowledge on this subject does not do you any wonders. I changed the bias tag to the one originally used because I think that the bias is clear to the viewer anyways. The reason tag, as you know, was inserted because of a request by a non-Indian, non-Pakistani user who wanted to put a reason for it. You sill haven't any of my original objections, don't worry, diverting the discussion only shows the POV you want to push. Hey how about now you go to the holocaust article and cover it up too? You can call the victims "terrorists". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Unlike you, my dear wikipedian, I always read sources before I balbber and get admonished by others for "happy go taggin". Your biased opinions are not based on reality and even after me providing sources and changing them accordingly you still stick to your old accusations. Get real and grow up and READ properly else you'd sound like, well... So I'm the only one in the whole world calling the kashmiri armed resistance as terrorists? I'm beginning to suspect by linking the holocaust of the jews (who were unarmed) with your happy bias for terrorists (who are fully armed and kill unarmed people) you must either be a) a person who can't see through reality as your vision is blurred through bias or b) you can't even make proper comparisons. I'm guessing its the latter. Idleguy 05:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

POV/NPOV

Well, the article has to be presented in a neutral point of view supported by credible references. There are many sides of the coin here.

• India's viewpoint
• Pakistan's Viewpoint
• Kashmiri viewpoint
  • Pro-India
  • Anti-India
  • Secessionist
• UN's viewpoint
• What the world at large thinks (remember 'world' is not just the US and UK)

The article should report what is going on in Kashmir. Look up the BBC and CNN sites to see how the topic is presented. Terrorism is a loaded word, so it will have to be defined as per all viewpoints. Quote India/Pakistan goverment sites for the two countries' viewpoints, and Kashmiri separatists' sites for theirs. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, points noted. But wouldn't such a definition still be termed as POV? eg. India has a definition of terrorism and Pak has one while the secessionist might have yet another. A third author might feel that the indian/pak/US definition of terrorism is loaded and thus "feel" its POV. What would happen in such a case? I accept this will all take time but we have to start somewhere. Idleguy 07:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure both countries's defination of terrorism should have something in common? ---> innocent people being killed? This should be mentioned in the lead at the start, and how it is interpreted by India, Pakistan etc (see list above). Its definately not a POV then. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

Can someone list the factually inaccurate words/lines in the article that has prompted a tag (along with POV)? I'll see what I can to reduce any factual errors atleast (since solving POV issues will take a longer time). Tx Idleguy 03:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If the factually inaccurate statements cannot be pointed out, I'm going to retag it just as POV instead of "totally disputed". As posted above none has responded to the request and so I'm assuming there isn't any unsourced statement/factually inaccurate lines. Idleguy 07:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove it yet. Usually factuality disputes accompany neutrality problems. Right now my largest concern on the page is the "Statistics" section. Maybe if that were removed, then it would help. Also many of the events are allegations so that is also why there are factuality issues. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your concern over the statistics section, though justified, can never be resolved. India would come with a figure on the number of terrorist camps and Pakistan would dismiss the claim. If there are some pieces of information which you feel are factually incorrect, then please list them. --Deepak|वार्ता 19:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How about removing the section and instead just having a link to the website? That way the statistics are not one-sided or disputed factually. Also usually such a summarisation of one website isn't necessary in an article. The statistics belong on the website itself. I will list other pieces of info soon when I have the time. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The amount of censorship that you are trying to impose on wikipedia articles is astonishing. The statistics section is not very large at the moment, so it should stay in the article, but we should also give the Pakistani or other statistics. What we could do is to create a special article for causalities and statistics, and make sure that Indian, Pakistan and other statistics are given. Other articles have already such special articles: [3] [4] and others. --Kefalonia 14:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with having a short separate article with statistics from all sides to link to this one. As for censorship, it would be nice if you could talk in a civil tone especially because I have no need to censor. By the way the articles you showed examples for are of confirmed fatalities not a one-sided estimation of a specific side. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. Removing the Statistics Section is not the solution. Besides the article does say that the figures were published by an Indian agency and Pakistan rejects these claims. Just for one section, tagging the entire article as totally disputed is not justfied. However, a similar tag can be placed for the Statistics section. --Deepak|वार्ता 17:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes but also other concerns should be dealt with. I think we should give it some time, maybe others also want to list some concerns. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

POV

This is seriously one sided article. no mention of 6th November 1947 [5]?

Its intersting to read that in list of training camps in Pakistan some of them are picnic points and far far away from Kashmir.I belive that Pakistan operates Traning camps but they are all in Kashmir region. not at all in any Pakistani area.(Its also the Govt. policy to not to buld any camp in Pakistan )

still Skardu listed, I belive this is also a Picnic point. and talking about Muredka its the headquater of Lashker-e-taiba but no training camp there (they have offices all around pakistan).

i never ever read of any camps in Sind.In sindh Islamic orgnizations are not much active Wisesabre 20:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethic cleansing???

Seriously dudes... your grasp on the language is appaling. ethnic cleansing is systematic mass murder or eviction of a community. Indian Army may have been heavy handed, it may killed a few innocent Kashmiis but that cant be termed "ethnic cleansing" infact terrorists have killed more civilians than army. BTW while Indian Army is outrageously accused of ethnic cleansing, "sepratist millitants" and their ilk have been given a free for ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir valley. Kashmiri Pandits didnt go voluntarily, they forced out by the atmosphere of violence and intimidation directed against them by "sepratist militants".

AMbroodEY 08:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I agree... What to do with Ethnicity? I know Kashmiri pandits are forced to move of Kashmir because of terrorists violence. Only 1% live in Kashmir now. Rest of them migrated to other parts because of insurgency. I know terrorists are trying to convert this conflict into a "holy" or religious issue which you editors should not encourage.

Prashanth

I have taken care of your concerns --Deepak|वार्ता 05:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced material

User:Anonymous editor deleted the following referenced material with the comment "let's try to clean this up". [6] [7]

Referenced material should not be deleted without giving valid reasons on the talk page.

• It is hard to determine the total number of casualties due to the ongoing terrorism in Kashmir. According to a report by the Government of India in the year 2000, 31,000 Indian civilians had lost their lives due to the insurgency. Human rights groups and local NGOs put the total figure at more than 50,000 (2000 figure).^[8] Militancy had reached its peak in 1994 when the region saw more than 6,043 terrorist incidents and has since declined. However, Kashmir continues to remain as the most volatile region in the world with an average of 2,500 terrorist incidents every year.^[9] According to an Indian estimate in 2005 there were about 2,000 terrorists in the Kashmir valley alone; 1,200 of them belong to the Hizbul Mujahideen.
• Several countries including the United States, Russian Federation, Israel, France and United Kingdom agree with India over the presence of terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil and have pressurised Pakistan to take actions against these terrorist groups.
• Indian sources also say that there are between 2,600 to 3,000 militants receiving training in camps across Pakistan and PoK. During a peace summit between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and Indian former-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in January 2004, Islamabad assured India that it would do everything possible to curb the activities of these terrorist training camps. However, violence has continued in Kashmir despite a 3 year long peace process between India and Pakistan. There were as many as 166 terrorist incidents in June 2005 alone in which some 201 people have died.^[10]
• According to Indian sources there are about 37 terrorist training camps in Pakistan, 49 in Azad Kashmir and 22 in Afghanistan.^[11] Every year thousands of armed insurgents infiltrate into Indian-administered Kashmir and carry out attacks against Indian Security Forces and Kashmiri civilians. In June 2005, the Indian Army had foiled atleast 72 infiltration attempts along the Line of Control in Kashmir.^[12]
• Many Kashmiri militant groups, especially Lashkar-e-Toiba started a vigrous campagin in the early 1990s to drive out non-Muslims out of the Kashmir valley. They carried out terrorist attacks against Hindu and Sikh settlements in the Kashmir valley. The district of Anantnag is the worst hit.
• Conflicting figures exist over the number of Hindus and Sikhs displaced from Kashmir due the ongoing violence. According to official Indian government estimates, 8370 Hindus have also been killed since 1989. Estimates for the number Kashmiri Hindus displaced due to the ongoing violence varies from 170,000 to 700,000^[13].
• Both the organisations no longer operate under these names after they were banned by the Indian and Pakistani government, and by other countries including the USA and UK, when it was found that a few of these organisations may have close ties to Al Qaeda.

• Many separatists have carried out attacks on Indian civilians and Indian military installations to protest Indian control over Kashmir.^[14] - changed to: Many separatists have carried out attacks on Indian military installations in response to Indian military occupation.^[15] --Paln 13:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly you reverted to Deepak's version almost entirely. I don't think I need to say anything here since you are clearly Deepak. Deepak already knows my concerns with the material and that is that it is very biased and one sided and reverting to his version is not acceptable. If you look closely, what you did by changing that info is making it so most of the paragraphs have India says this and India says that without the other side.

All the edits you did were one sided and at the end when the only other POV that was given you said "India however rebuffs these allegations as an attempt to create a false anti-India propaganda." All of the numbers you gave are Indian numbers and all of the accusations of violence are applied to Hindus and Sikhs and not to Muslims and other Kashmiris. Even read the material you just referenced. Sorry I have to revert it. The problem isn't sources here, it's making it so the article is not one sided. I think if we could make the article shorter that can fix our problem. Also please note that the incident board is not the proper place for dispute as it says please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Anon you couldn't have insulted me more. Do you think I am that stupid that I will create a sockpuppet account and try to make changes to the article.. What difference does it make if the changes are made by User:Deepak gupta or by some other user. As long as it is pro-India you are going to revert it. Anon, why don't you just leave me alone. My mistake.. I shouldn't have got tempted and browsed Wikipedia. After all these months of dedicated work for Wikipedia, all I get in return is a baseless accusation of creating a sockpuppet account. You know.. that's the flaw in Wikipedia.. anybody can point at anyone's trustworthyness for no reason. Well, and regarding this article.. as I said before.. what this article says makes no difference to me. I've gotta concentrate on my studies now. Nobody has gained anything from fighting, accusation and controversy. Anon.. my piece of advice to you.. ask yourself a question.. do you think Lord (or Allah) created you for spending hours and hours accusing people. Life is beautiful Anon.. cherish it. And fear God before hurting others.. some day or the other we all have to face Him --Deepak 05:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Deepak I hope you realize that you just admitted your edits to the article were "pro-Indian". And I am sorry but Deepak it's shameful that you or someone you know would create another account to do this and I hope you stop using it because it could get the user's real and sock accounts blocked. It is a good idea to concentrate on your studies. Also thank you for your advice, you are clearly angry at me still but I wish we could come up with a solution. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Anonymous editor. Distracting from the issue by accusing and insulting another editor like here [16]. Why not say "Please come back..." for a change. If you're saying it is pov, you have to list factual and actionable reasons. --Paln 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should I say come back when he's already here using sockpuppets or getting some other wikipedia editor to use one. And also is crying about him being the "best editor" around and having to leave because of me who is really evil and whitewashes everything. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's it Anon.. for once stop making baseless accusations.. you like to live in your dreamworld but for once get your head moving straight. Guess who am I? Yes Mr. Deepak Gupta and now match my IP address with this User's and prove it.. I challenge you.. you are acting like a kid here anon.. I just don't know what to say.. NOw that I have left Wikipedia, you are trying defame me.. Enough.. what a cheap act! I am sorry.. even after I left Wikipedia I had to intervene becasue you raised a question on my dignity.. Boy.. I wish I could sue you for defamation.. Next time you accuse someone, whether its Deepak Gupta or someone else. back your claims with EVIDENCES and if you feel that I created a sockpuppet account then get my account blocked.. c'mon.. for once convert your words into actions.. PUSSY --128.210.40.124 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What is not acceptable is the deletion of referenced material, which violates Wikipedia policy. Even if it were pov (which is disputable), the valid information cannot be deleted, but should simply be edited accordingly. See this:

"Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly. [17]

You clearly didn't give a valid reason to delete all the text. And you cannot simply delete all the different paragraphs from the whole article for the same invalid reason. If you think the article is one-sided, then you should add your own sources.

Long articles are not a problem in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not paper, if the article is too long, then some sub-articles have to be created. --Paln 09:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

We have to be neutral. Referencing can be done for anything, there are probably many Indian websites that support the Indian view and all you did is remove material that even criticizes India a little bit. You have accept responsibility here. Also note that you were the one who changed the paragraphs so much in the first place and you should be the one discussing why you did it in the first place and not accusing me of deleting it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

For what should I take responsibility? For your attempts at whitewashing the terrorists?

As I said above, you gave no valid reason to delete all the different paragraphs. Each of the separate parts must be judged on its own. That the material is pov might be your personal opinion. If you're saying it is pov, you have to list factual and actionable reasons. I didn't change any of the paragraphs as all I did was reverting, and I made the last edit with only additions, no other changes. --Paln 10:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As I have told you many times before Deepak we can not whitewash the Indian army either. Why is it always this argument? Have you ever thought that maybe Kashmiris are also terrorized by the Indian army. It has committed human rights violations and they are documented. Blaming everything on the "terrorists" is not what we are trying to achieve here. So please stop making ridiculous accusations about whitewash since it's like whitewashing Indian army violations. Running around all over the place trying to report me will not help either and is just disrupting the process. I will continue to work on this article. We can't have you come along, completely change the article and then say that we should keep your version. This is very disrupting to wikipedia. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope and terminology

There are two main problems with this article.

• Scope - The article attempts to discuss everything related to the dispute in Kashmir. I don't see why there should be anything more than a couple of sentences about the history with a reference to the history of the Kashmir conflict.
• Terminology - Throughout the article, the word "terrorist" is consistently and incorrectly used as a synonym for "insurgent". This is particularly egregious in the stats supplied by the Indian government where everything related to the insurgency is labelled "terrorist". This is simple propaganda and shouldn't be dumped into an article without at least some context (if it belongs at all).

I'd proposed fixing the article by replacing most of the history of the conflict with a "see" reference to the main article, removing everything that's not about terrorism in Kashmir (i.e. everything that's merely related to the insurgency). Removing everything that's simple propaganda from one party to the conflict (the Indian gov't stats) --Lee Hunter 22:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Long articles are not a problem in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not paper, if the article is too long, then some sub-articles should be created. And valid information should not be deleted, but edited accordingly or moved to another (new) article. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As long as the information is presented in neutral language there should be no problem: When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be attributed and cited. [18]

See Terrorism and Definition of terrorism and [19]. Probably both words should be used, depending on the context. An Afghani "Al Qada" militant who went to Kashmir and is involved in politically motivated violence against innocents or activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping can also be called terrorist according to these definitions. But if appropriate the word insurgent can be used. Both words can be used, if the context is right. The articles on 7 July 2005 London bombings and other such incidents use the word terrorist. --Paln 10:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting to the length of the article. The problem is that it goes far beyond the scope of the title and duplicates another article. This is a real problem and should be fixed. Regarding the word "terrorism", both the articles you point to say that the word is highly subjective, that it is usually used in a pejorative sense, that there is no agreement on the definition, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter etc. For this reason, WP articles generally avoid using the term except where nothing else fits (hence the use in the London bombings). Even the article on Osama bin Laden doesn't use the word terrorist (although it gets reinserted from time to time). There have been acts of terrorism in Kashmir but to describe all insurgents as "terrorists" is completely inappropriate. Parroting the Indian government position is hardly NPOV. --Lee Hunter 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, sometimes the word terrorist is better, and sometimes other words are better. It depends on the context. In many cases (but not all), it may be better to use other words than terrorist. If there is material that is not in the scope of this article it should be moved to another article (without deleting it for only this reason). --Paln 12:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Lee said. You have to stop thinking of all separatists as terrorists which I know is what many Indian sources report. Also the problem isn't references. As I said before you can probably find references for anything, probably even saying that the separatists are using nuclear weapons against Indian troops! The problem is NPOV and you have to be neutral. The article very nicely showed the Indian side before you changed it, now it just removes any little criticism of India there is and basically says that the only ones who have suffered are the Hindus and Sikhs when just as many (actually more) Muslim and other groups have been killed. I also agree with removing the statistics part that is from just one Indian intelligence group. Why don't we use sources from one separatist group to report how many Indian troop training camps there are on the Indian side? So I think that making the article shorter by removing the history section and statistics sections will solve the problems of POV as long as you allow enough criticism of both sides. Both sides are responsible for this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I think the article states "Terrorism in Kashmir" which itself should be POV per se since it's hard to draw the line between the "separatists" and the "terrorists". And exactly what purpose would it serve if in your own words an article on the terrorism in kashmir did "report how many Indian troop training camps there are on the Indian side?". fyi the articles DOES state the number of Indian troops in the kashmir region with sources, so I don't see why the alleged terrorist camps and its count should not be mentioned? Both sides should be mentioned and while Pakistan might object to Indian presence in Kashmir (and vice versa) neither labels their armed forces' training camps as "terrorist camps"! After all, this would be the right article where information on the "terror camps" in Kashmir might ideally find mention. Idleguy 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

All "Paln" had done in this article is completely taken away any responsibility from the Indian army which has committed human rights violations in the past. And so have the separatists I agree. Completely saying that any attempt at criticizing India is "anti-Indian propaganda" and that the "terrorists" are blamed for everything. Now we can work to make this article shorter and less biased. I don't know what you are trying to say Idleguy but maybe you didn't understand the reason I was making. But I am fine with keeping the section. I have removed some repeated and pov information from the paragraphs above it. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with Paln's edits either. What I intend to point out is that the article's title itself could be construed as POV. As they say, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, so I'm guessing that some Pakistanis or pro-independence Kashmiris might find the article's heading as biased. Indian authors meanwhile might find it apt to include only the terrorist activities as that is what the current title suggests. Idleguy 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Hi there, I came in through WP:RFC/P concerning these portions of text.

Reading through the edits, I think most of them are pretty warranted, mostly because it is mentioned that it is an Indian source providing the information. Saying the Indians have a particular POV doesnt strike me as being POV in itself.

However, the accusation of being "linked" to Al-Qaeda needs a reference. Being named as "having close ties" is not enough to warrant inclusion imho. Unless, of course, it has a proper reference.

My 2 cents! Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at the issue. I have removed the Al-Qaeda part because it needs references:

Both the organisations no longer operate under these names after they were banned by the Indian and Pakistani government, and by other countries including the USA and UK, when it was found that a few of these organisations may have close ties to Al Qaeda. --Paln 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)