Talk:Rape in Jammu and Kashmir

Tags

What should have been a decent article has now become a POV hellhole. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Could this not be merged into Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See my comments on that article talk. This is a spin off. It should contain a small summary there with main article link to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Who cares? This article is fubar now. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no that much content to work with on this page, so I think it can easily be moved to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, unlike Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War... which DarknessShines has just brought up some good points. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This article was just started. I think it can grow into an article as good. Unlike Bangladesh war, this is a current issue and is likely to develop further continuously in addition to the same reasons for keeping that article. If at a later point it is evident that there isn't enough material for this article to be a stand alone and that it wont make that article too long, we can probably merge it. But at the moment, I think its growing at a high rate. Is that reasonable? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. We'll give it sometime since it was just started and it's concerning recent events. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent events my ass, it's been ongoing for twenty years. [1] This is were I had gotten to in the last couple of days. I have of course removed all that content now. Like i said, this could have been an excellent article, now it is a stick to beat India with. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, currently the lead contains different content which should be probably a section. How about moving this content to a background section (or something similar) and adding only the main parts of it and other sections to the lead? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

America

Khan mentions America sexual torture in relation to rape and murder by army, police and para-military in J & K, this article also quotes US government's allegations of rape by army. How is that irrelevant? Behaviour of security forces when dealing with "terrorists" and the civilian population of the field of operation of terrorists. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert DS, though if American sources are considered reliable when contradicting Indian government sources regarding an internal issue, America can be referred in the same article on terrorism and the military response. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is semi- or pending-changes warranted?

Resolved

There has been a bit of recent sock-puppetry by newly-created accounts on this article recently.

Three ways to handle this are:

• Aggressive watchlisting, by enough editors to cover the times of day that the puppet-master is editing this article under any account.
• Semi-protection, to prevent newly-created accounts from editing.
• Pending-changes, to make the short-term damage from the time the puppet-master edits and the time it is rejected invisible to non-logged-in editors.

If there are enough editors to do the first one, that is enough. Otherwise, which of the other two is preferable on this article, semi-protection or pending-changes-protection?

Sidebar: Semi- and Pending-changes can be used together, but that's only if the problem is by autoconfirmed (i.e. not-brand-new) editors and protecting the page is a better solution than sanctioning the editor. That is not the case here.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

An administrator semi-protected this for a month, without waiting for a discussion. That sounds like an answer to me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Deleted section (Rape by militants section)

I still await an answer from User Darkness Shines why the section was being blanked, and an apology for removing my talkpage comment, which is talk page vandalism. If the content and its sources are valid, then they cannot be removed. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course it can be removed. It was added by a sockpuppet. It also violates NPOV in the way it was written, and the article already mentions attacks by terrorists/militant groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the article history and in the first edit you say this article was created by a sockpuppet. So by this rationale the whole article should be deleted. But if the content is valid then it can be added.

But NPOV is a valid argument. I leave it to others to decide about this. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The article was created by a sock, he was around yesterday in fact, left me a pleasant message on my talk page. It was deleted then I recreated it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Rape in India

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Redundant article, parent article is only at 29,735 bytes. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC) Note: Proposer was a Sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've to agree with this proposal. Rape in Jammu and Kashmir has been uselessly expanded. I don't see any reliable statistics, or frequency or causes and factors on that article. It should be merged into this article. OccultZone (Talk) 14:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - per Proposer DS and OccultZone DBigXray 17:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is about human right abuses committed by Indian army and paramilitary that cannot be discussed under Rape in India. -- - sms- talk    13:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Why can't it? The page already has a separate section for J&K and two subsections of Indian armed forces and Militant groups. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

J&K has special status and its own constitution, so it'll be better to have a separate article on it. -- - sms- talk    13:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hahaha! Constitution of India is not applicable to WP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose obviously. The subject is notable in its own right and has recieved ubiquitous coverage, especially in the context of the Kashmir conflict. There are more than enough references from various authoritative sources that discuss this topic in detail. An article for the subject is very important. I do not see a strong pretext or case presented forward as too why this needs a merger into Rape in India. Besides, if and when this topic is further expanded, it will need a breakaway article anyway as too much Kashmir-specific content on Rape in India will undermine that article's scope. Getting this article merged would be a redundant and useless exercise. Mar4d (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
• Observation on close This was de facto closed by the proposer by his recent edit turning this into a redirect. Given the close-ness of the debate ("4 to 2" is only 2 people short of a "tie !vote" - but this is not a headcount) and the merit of the arguments on both sides, I would have preferred a non-involved editor close this. If I were closing it, I would close it as weak consensus to merge, with a caution that the merge effort may be "for naught" if and when the content in the target article grows to the point that a split is desired or required, and a caution that "consensus can change."

I also have a minor quibble with not letting this discussion go at least 30 days. It's a "minor" quibble because there has been no discussion in over a week and no reason to think extending it to the full month would provide any benefit.

Also, the merge is NOT done yet, only the redirect has been created. Editors should merge the contents then discuss whether or not a split is required. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• After the merge is done, {{Talk page of redirect}} and {{merged-from}} should be placed in the appropriate locations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose An article's notability is not judged by the number of bytes it has! The subject is notable enough to have a separate article of its own. The state's army's sponsored oppressive rape is notable enough, agreed with SMS and Mar4d. Faizan 22:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Faizan: In how many other states of the world the army has allegedly carried out rape? Article is an undue weight and lacks accuracy. There is nothing appreciable about it. Non-notable events are the reason why it had remained merged for almost 2 months now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Calling it non-notable would be incorrect by a stretch as there are hundreds and thousands of human rights papers, commissions and academical work on instances of rape in Kashmir. The issue has also been a source of diplomatic contention between Pakistan and India. To say that the subject is undue and non-notable would be taking denial to Mount Everest-like heights. Besides, apart from independent notability of this topic, merging this is a useless exercise because this article is already long enough to have a stand-alone article. Mergng it into Rape in India would have two effects: 1) A large part of Rape in India will be focused on Kashmir issues; 2) There is so much content that this article is lacking. With further expansion of this topic's content (which can be done soon seeing just the sheer coverage and sources that can be found on this), this would inevitable need to be converted into an article in the future anyway even if it is to be merged now. Mar4d (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Much is undue and repetition of the same 'allegations' that remain just bunch of thoughts for decades, even a short 2 liner is enough for describing this whole article. This article lacks all sort of stats, accuracy(no details about area, dating of incidents). Article has also got some heavy amount of non-notable incidents. If you are going to cover more non-notable events or you want this whole article into Rape in India, I would say that it wouldn't be constructive idea. Whatever we needed from this article it had been already added to Rape in India without extending any single case. Overloaded explanations makes an article look like essay. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

even a short 2 liner is enough for describing this whole article - and you pretty much lose your case here. Sorry, but you don't determine what constitutes notability and what is undue or due for that matter according to your own likes and preferences. Wikipedia already has an extensive policy on what makes a topic notable, and one of the main points to determine notability is that the subject has significant coverage in reliable sources. Clearly, this topic meets that criteria. The second part of your reply about not wanting to merge this content shows that this discussion is clearly an attempt to whitewash content away from Wikipedia that seems to portray India negatively. I will not hesitate to say that there is strong nationalism, bias and POV at work here. Mar4d (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Having a source is not enough, you have to verify the credibility of the subject. Wikpedia is not a mirror of HRW like you have tried to apply in your previous posts. This article clearly fails enough notability for having its own page. Especially when you have edit warred over the merge after taking advantage of the nom's topic ban and sock(86..) invasion is on going, you generally lose the credibility. You don't seem to be discussing about the topic but you seem to be discussing about the invisible or non-existing issues that has to do nothing with the subject. Try to stay on the subject. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Especially when you have edit warred over the merge after taking advantage of the nom's topic ban and sock(86..) invasion is on going, you generally lose the credibility. You don't seem to be discussing about the topic but you seem to be discussing about the invisible or non-existing issues that has to do nothing with the subject. Try to stay on the subject. - Don't force your personal assumptions on me and reach your own conclusions. I am on the topic, it is clearly you who's deviating. You have not given a satisfactory reply on the concerns I've presented. This is not a fictional or random subject we're talking about, it is I repeat, a notable and controversial topic that has a lot to do with the Kashmir conflict. We have significant coverage of rape and human rights incidents articles on Wikipedia, and all of them have a common denominator of notability which is determined by what is written on those topics - as well factual information existing on those subjects. Clearly, you have not given a reasonable argument as to how Rape and human rights abuses in Kashmir are non-notable - they are in fact internationally notable.

Dr. Maiti denounces the fact that 'Rape continues to be a major instrument of Indian oppression against the Kashmiri people while the majority of victims are civilians. This concept stands fortified by a report of ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] dated March 6, 2001, where it has been mentioned that women are raped in order to humiliate, frighten and defeat the enemy "group" to which they belong.

— Feminism, Literature and Rape Narratives: Violence and Violation, Sorcha Gunne, ‎Zoe Brigley Thompson 2012

Mar4d (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You will find many commentaries that are filled with unfounded claims and assumptions. But what actually makes them notable? How many convictions there were even in last 10 years? You know any amount? Consider providing a source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, please stop inputting your personal opinions as facts. You are not qualified to decide what is notable and what are "unfounded claims and assumptions." Provide a source or reference for your argument. Also, as far as convictions are concerned, it is a rather well-known matter that official inquiries and commissions in India are corrupt, lack credibility and have found to give clean chits to guilty and accused perpetrators.

In 1992, the United States Department of State's report on international human rights rejected the Indian government's conclusion and stated that there was "credible evidence to support charges that an elite army unit engaged in mass rape in the Kashmiri village of Kunan Poshpora". It is also interesting that Justice Verma's report on the Delhi Rape issue acknowledged the need for accountability...

— Rita Pal: Rape in Kashmir - The Forgotten War Crime

Mar4d (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, then tell me about those who have the qualification for deciding what is notable and what isn't.. You know that you have basically asserted that there are only "claims" and like no convictions. Whoever(or at least me) clicks on the article, they would think that the article has some credible records. But whenever you would read this article, the final assumption would be.. "In Jammu and Kashmir, both Indian army and insurgents have allegedly carried out rape", nothing else. Because if you want to note any incidents, you will have to point to the notability and conviction. Something we cannot find anywhere. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support redundant article. There is nothing 'unique' to put here that doesn't already go under the other article. --Jyoti (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree with that. Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is a topic that has been receiving international written and spoken coverage for decades, and is tied to the Kashmir conflict. There are numerous academic sources detailing that sexual abuse is an extensive human rights issue in Kashmir, and that Kashmir has been one of the most sexually violent wartime regions in recent times. Mar4d (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advocate of Human rights. Human rights also writes about the train accidents, so we will be making a whole article in the honour of those reports after highlighting a specific state? Sounds like a funny idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your logic on what train accidents have to do with the Kashmir conflict. Mar4d (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I Support the proposal which is merge. --Jyoti (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose It is not a matter and question of human rights or rape incidents, that happens every day around the world---the question is this why should the article merge with Rape in India which is lengthy and informative with reliable sources, while there are a lot of articles on different subjects that have the "titled" sections too and also the main articles with lengthy details (especially so as to be tedious.) One can senselessly refer undue weight, but it is actually not. We should not game the system or try to act I don't like it. Wikipedia is not a political ground where we display our personal interests and agenda. If we adopt that, everyone is going to other articles and tagging to merge here and there. It is neither purpose nor specific rule of the Wikipedia-encyclopedia to do so. It is very important article for the international readers, we should not allow to kill the article for the sake of such politics,therefore I strongly oppose.Justice007 (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Justice007: You have came after a notification from some obvious WP:SPA.[2] Actual thing is that this article it is not lengthy but clearly WP:UNDUE, there are a number of reliable sources that report non-notable incidents, so "merely having a source is not sufficient rationale for inclusion", you need just more than that. I don't see any importance in addressing a number of outdated allegations that have proven ground reality or they have any accuracy, if it is so important then why we don't have any stats or major analysis but a few isolated incidents for such a "notable subject" that you seem to be claiming without even reading or evaluating the article per wikipedia policies. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reluctant oppose I would support deleting the article or merging with Human rights abuses in Kashmir. But rape by military, para-military, or terrorist groups etc. is qualitatively different and so this article shouldn't be merged with Rape in India. --regentspark (comment) 14:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Knew that delete may be inevitable, reading the article.. We are basically talking about the unfounded assumptions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::OccultZone, I do not think my involvement fall under WP:SPA.[3], for this kind of invitations have also been posted by the administrators of Wikipedia at multiple talk pages, as I have more than 3000 articles in my watch list, I take a look every day on that, it is happened to be asked for my review, I do not think that I acted against NPOV, we have to see the NPOV, and it is visible in my comment. I don't go to discuss the matter that creates something else than the dispute. I have taken a look at the comment of regentspark, his suggestion is appropriate, I shall support that, it is the real concept of NPOV.Justice007 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Justice007: Yeah his proposal is also good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So you mean to say that "Human rights abuse" is more the core topic than "rape" over here? I don't mind merger to either destinations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Because the article talks about institutional forces raping and government bodies implicitly condoning the rapes by not investigating. And that's intricately tied to the reaction to the insurgency in the Kashmir Valley. That said, the fact that all this is at the level of allegations and accusations strongly indicates that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article but, assuming the material should be on Wikipedia at all, should be a part of a larger narrative on human rights abuses. I'd support either a merger with that article or outright deletion.--regentspark (comment) 16:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of human rights seems relevant. Article "Rape in India" is probably good for now. Just like Dharmadhayaksha I wouldn't disagree with your proposal. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• There's no strong consensus to get this article merged anywhere, neither is there a strong reason existing as to why it needs a merger or deletion. All of the arguments in support of merge are very hollow to the say the least and I have yet to find any argument proving that this subject is not notable for a stand-alone article. It appears that efforts to get another discussion going after this is clearly an attempt to game the system on behalf of users who very obviously have wanted to whitewash this article away from the start. Mar4d (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are you pretending to be a closing admin here giving a summary? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support: This is a fairly small article, and any notable material in it could be preserved in a larger article. --RaviC (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Mar4d. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this is (apparently) just WP:IDONTLIKETHAT at part of the supporting editors with not a bit of policy based arguments. Secondly, this is a full fledge article in its own and there's no need of merge. Thirdly, the proposer admitted to be a sock puppet so I've struck his own !vote / proposal (but not removed it so that it still makes sense what others are talking about). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Your argument clearly falls under WP:ILIKEIT. There is no need of this article that is fogged with the unfounded claims and allegations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, doesn't work to change my !vote. Not really convincing to me when you without an argument only link the opposite essay of the one I linked to make a part of my point. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.