Talk:Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Grammar: Indian revocation of special status to Jammu and Kashmir

Is "to" the correct preposition in the title? Usually we revoke something from something. "Dessert was revoked from Jeff for bad behavior." Or "resulted in the revocation of the Store Manager title from Jeff." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, good point Cyphoidbomb. Unfortunately, "from" doesn't sit right in this context. After mulling over the alternatives, I guess I will bite the bullet and add an apostrophe. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Reaction from Ladakh

The following paragraph was placed under the wrong section "Reactions from within Jammu and Kashmir". It should be moved elsewhere. --Saqib (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

A member of the Lok Sabha for Ladakh, Jamyang Tsering Namgyal, praised the abrogation of Article 370 and the proposed formation of a separate Ladakh union territory and said he hoped the move will encourage development and create jobs in the region. He added "Under Kashmir, our development, our political aspiration, our identity, our language, if all of this got lost, it is because of Article 370".

Dear "Saqib" - If you follow events properly, you will know that at present, and until at least 31 October 2019, the Ladakh region is still a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and that therefore the opinions of people who live there there do clearly matter. The opinions of people displaced from the state as a result of violence should also be included. I have changed the heading to affected areas to avoid such confusion Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. J&K right now means the state, and that state doesn't have a consensus on Article 370. That should indeed be highlighted. Reactions from Jammu too need to be added. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine. I wasn't sure thats why moved the above para to this talk page for others opinion. Calling me biased without any solid proof is an attack. --Saqib (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, peace please! We are all good guys here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Section 144 imposition in Jammu, Ladakh

@Kautilya3: Sources state that Section 144 lockdown was applied to various districts in the Jammu and Ladakh regions as well. Some Jammu/Ladakh districts have recently lifted the restrictions, or extended them. Any sources that confirm that the lockdown was "only" applied to the Kashmir valley? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, Section 144 is not normally referred to as a "lock down". What was done in the Valley is a lot more than Section 144. All the shops were shut, schools closed, roads blocked, mobile and cable networks shut down and so on. This kind of lock down never happened anywhere in India before. We should not trivialise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And, I believe, not fully verified, that all the local police were also sent home and all the police stations were taken over by the Central Police. Somebody called it "Marshal Law", which is an apt description. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree due weight is important, we must avoid trivializing something significant. My main concern is NPOV. If Section 144 curfew was applied to other districts, that too is significant. A sentence makes a passing mention of Section 144 in the "Government clampdown" part in the main article, but it is not clear that Section 144 was applied to other districts and not just the Kashmir valley. Any reasons to not clarify that? Of course, while citing the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do add it in the clamp down section. But, I don't think it is important enough for the lead. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I need to run and take care of some RL chores. Will do this later today, if someone has not done it by then. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose this be moved to "Indian change to Jammu and Kashmir's status" or "Indian change to Jammu and Kashmir's status (2019)". This is because the change that happened was more than a revocation to the special status. The state has been changed into a union territory and further split into two. A lot of the Kashmiri reactions, e.g from Omar Abdullah, are in relation to the separation of Ladakh.VR _talk 23:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand your point, but we should use the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources. Please obtain consensus at WT:WikiProject India#International reactions to the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir by India.

I should also point out that union territory isn't a single kind of concept in India. The union territories "with legsilature" (which is what is proposed for J&K) are normally treated as if they are states in ordinary discourse (e.g., Puduchery and Delhi). Other than policing, all other matters are under the elected government's jurisdiction. I admit, though, that the psychological impact on the Kashmiris is likely to be quite significant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Failed verification

I could verify the following from the source given: "At the same time it was reported that Muslim leaders in Leh also celebrated by raising the flag of India over a historic mosque in the town". Source.

When I googled, I did find "Muslim community leader Dr Abdul Qayum, who took part in the celebration..." but nothing else.

If I'm not reading the above, correctly, then please post a quote. Thanks.VR _talk 23:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let's add more quotes to the article. 2405:204:5787:6494:D0B0:33AA:D007:CC3E (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

UN Security Council meeting summary

Adnaan Ali: We should not rely exclusively on the Pakistani media or the Indian media when possible, prefer a more neutral media as we can find. Bloomberg, Reuters, etc are preferred sources in articles such as this one. Please do not delete the summary from such sources. Please do not edit war, and let us discuss your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

@Fowler&fowler:: My multiple edits have been reverted accusing me with a POV. I don't know but I tried to provide a balance if you looked at my edits which I think you did not. I doubt my edits have even been read before being reverted? Specially, those related to references [38] and [39]. This is really sad as I invested a lot of time to improve this article. I didn't know if this dedication and aggressive editing is discouraged here. Let me quote from Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

1. but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration. It is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit than to revert the prior edit. Furthermore, your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit.

2. Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing. Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest. (To do this, you can use the "undo" button, then type back in what you want to keep). If a supporter of the reverted edit wants to save more of it, that editor can re-edit in smaller pieces and the article can converge on a consensus version that way.

3. Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes.

Go and take some time to read the article in its entirety and also the real news out there. And then if you think, this page has a POV issue and you are happy with it, so be it and please carry on! I am least interested in edit or revert wars or whatever you call them. If there is a star for it, I nominate you for Star for Misuse of Twinkle. Adnaan Ali (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Why some reliable sources and content have been deleted?

A lot of content supported by reliable sources has been deleted by user:Vaibhavafro, which must be added or at least part of it that is important and objective. user:Vaibhavafro has added the Indian view of the legality and legal details to an internationally recognized dispute by the United Nations. Some other users and editors must look into this article and undo protection until there are enough responses coming from various countries and organisations because this is an ongoing event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.36.130.236 (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

CHANGE:

According to the Pakistani newspaper Dawn, a local journalist told CPJ that "I fear that they will arrest journalists, especially those who will report what is happening".[30][better source needed]

- in the section government clampdown must be replaced with the following with the direct reference and clarity:

TO:

A local journalist told CPJ that "I fear that they will arrest journalists, especially those who will report what is happening". CPJ later confirmed that at least 2 journalists were detained amid tensions in Jammu and Kashmir. 51.39.129.113 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2019

 Done Add the following in the section on "International Reactions" under "Organization" because these are two important organizations:

• Human Rights Watch mentioned that basic freedoms was at risk in Kashmir, and asked India to ensure rights protections in Kashmir and "step back".

• Reporters without Borders reported that Indian-administered Kashmir is cut off from the world and said, "The state of Jammu and Kashmir became a news and information black hole in the space of a single morning yesterday." The organization condemned "the relentless information warfare that Prime Minister Narendra Modi began waging ten days ago by severing all communication in the Kashmir Valley" and called for the immediate restoration of all means of communication.

• Genocide Watch, member and current Coordinator of the Alliance Against Genocide, issued a genocide alert calling upon "the United Nations and its members to warn India not to commit genocide in Kashmir" because all the ten stages of the genocidal process identified by Gregory Stanton are far advanced and early warnings of massacres in the risk factors for genocide are met.

51.36.130.236 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Professional improvement of legal section

When I saw that information on the legal aspects of the decision was missing, I brainstormed it all by myself and added it in the article. I feel that a professional lawyer-cum-Wikipedian should verify the section. Vaibhavafro (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavafro: The best legal dissection of the issue I've come across is this interview with the Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law.

One of the points made is that "... under President’s rule Parliament can exercise the powers of a Legislative Assembly but Parliament cannot express the views of the Legislative Assembly. And since the constitution requires before you change the borders or the status of a state that you ascertain the views of the Assembly, those views have not been ascertained ..." -- Edit-pi (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure it was covered somewhere in one of these Kashmir-related articles on Wikipedia that the Indian constitution does not provide for downgrading of states to union territories... I can't put my finger on where I saw it, but that is the sort of information we should be including here. DeluxeVegan (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Edit-pi: Yes, we could include that in the article. But my personal opinion says that the parliament didn't express the views of the legislative assembly, the governor (who is = The gov.t of J&K) did. Read the full text of the Presidential order. After all, the presidential order was issued BEFORE both the houses of the parliament passed the statutory resolution; on August 5. Vaibhavafro (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Background and legal section

I have removed all POV-y content, OR and unsourced essay-like statement on 370 background etc. Kashmir is a sensitive topic. Not only should we strictly avoid unsourced/OR/POV-y content, we should rely on scholarly sources and equivalent RS for the background and the legal section. Avoid newspapers, leftist- and rightist- media op-eds as well. There is much peer-reviewed scholarly publications out there on the background and legal issues here. Comments and concerns are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced POV-y blog-like personal essay

Ms Sarah Welch, whywhat you have removed is a summary of the main articles linked in the Background section, as need for the background for this page. Please state what your objections are. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see the above. The "summary-style" was a misleading OR and POV-y presentation of a side. I will accept an NPOV summary of scholarly sources such as Bose, Noorani, Jaffrelot, etc etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added an alternate sourced version - mostly copied text and sources from the related article. This summary version is better as its focus is on 370 and the special status to J&K, it mentions the history of changes to Kashmir's special status over time thereby providing the context, acknowledges that Kashmir is a long-simmering dispute, and because it cites and better reflects the scholarship on Kashmir's special status (the title of the article). We should remember that the potential readers of this article and the background can be those outside of South Asia. I welcome further improvements to this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I am happy to critiqued, but not happy to be peeled off and discarded with wooly comments like "OR" and "POV". All the content that you have removed is made of facts, not anybody's views (except for one "north pole", "south pole" comment, which nobody should contest). So, what exactly are you objecting to? What "one side" are you referring to?

The background needed for this article is to explain why the 'special status' exists, and what opposition there was to it. It also needs to cover the recent history, which led to the centre seemingly acquiring the power to remove the special status, which could not be done without the 'concurrence of the state government'.

We have already had disagreements at the Article 370 article, where an entire section contributed by you still has a POV tag on it. For you to come here and claim that you are writing an NPOV summary goes against this. Even if you were cutting and pasting article LEADS, when they are taken out of context, they can have different meaning. For example, the phrase "Article 370 allows..." gives the impression that it was in the Article 370's gift to "allow" something. Neither of the citations you added used such language. The fact is that the Article 370 incorporates into the Constitution the powers vested in it by the Instrument of Accession. Nothing more, nothing less. The idea that India "allowed" J&K to have special status is Hindutva POV, which you are incorporating here in the name of NPOV!

Asking Winged Blades of Godric to take a look at this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking ..... ∯WBG^converse 13:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: The Instrument of Accession signed by J&K’s ruler Hari Singh did not differ even by a SINGLE WORD from what other princely states signed. I just wanted to point this out to you after I read your last comment. Vaibhavafro (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, read the Article 370 page, where this is covered in full measure. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: please replace any word such as "allows" in this and in related articles that you are concerned about. I will cheer your effort, as always. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have been watching this page for sometime and I am barging into this discussion. Upon my perusal of this discussion I have made few changes to the terminology in the article ([1]). While the "allowance" of the Centre for J&K to retain its autonomy is seemingly pro-Hindutva and neo-colonist (Welch's use of the term "allow" may have very well been unintended and unconscious), it draws parallels when news reports report of men having "allowed" their wife to be in the limelight ([2]). I have not changed certain terms used in context of the Court "allowing" people to visit family/friends in the state or the government "allowing" people to celebrate Eid/buy groceries/call family members, as the institutions have indeed had a very skewed paternalising approach. I would be looking forward to discussion on the use of such terms in such contexts as well. Pinging @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Kautilya3:, and @Vaibhavafro: here. --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, alas, my edits were neither that original nor unconsciously exciting! I just copied and pasted from the other article, as I noted in my edit comment. The article, well before my first edit, already used the term "allowed" etc added by other editors. Both of you make good points. Some words are more neutral than others, as WP:W2W suggests. Let us collaboratively improve. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That's understandable. I have made changes to the Article 370 article, per this discussion here, drawing parallels ([3]). --Tamravidhir (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tamravidhir, that is a good solution. We used to use "allow", assuming that people would understand it in the context, but it has now become a loaded word. One of the things I didn't notice at the time of the discussion is the timeline: 15-16 May 1949 is when the Centre negotiated with J&K, 19 May 1949 is when the other states agreed to accept the Indian constitution as their own constitution. So, it is clear that it was part of the same process. They key difference is that the other states that didn't have their own constituent assemblies gave up on the idea, whereas J&K insisted on having it later on. The three other states that did have constituent assemblies apparently continued deliberating, and the Article 371 apparently included provisions for them, according to a recent article by Partha Chatterjee. Those issues are not as well-documented in the literature as those for J&K. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

References

That's a well written article by Chatterjee. To note, there was a discussion on the reliability of The Wire (not sure of where exactly) and it was certainly upheld to be a WP:RS so in absence of literature it does suffice. You also remind that I need to thoroughly read Noorani's Article 370. Lastly, the term "allow" becomes controversial also because it seemingly misses to convey that Article 370 was as much a decision by J&K as it was by the centre. So it's their right.--Tamravidhir (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Indian MEAs statement

• Kashmir was in a mess before Aug. 5: Jaishankar

The article above has some useful content to expand the article straight from the MEAs mouth. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If it is supposed to be an "internal affair" why does the external affairs minister's statements have any relevance? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree, but he is representing the Indian Government, the content IMHO is useful to throw more light on the Indian decisions/acts that lead to the abrogation. especially the last few paras. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he plays the role of an external-facing spokesman, but I see that he is not really addressing any of the internal issues that really matter for this article. Kashmir was in a mess. Yeah, we get that. But how is this going to make any difference? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir was in a mess. yes. The last 3 paras of the article outline the mess. Hence I feel it is useful. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I can accept them as the Indian Government's viewpoint. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir". No consensus at this time to move to any other title. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Proposal 1

Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status → Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir–

(1) Current title seems a little off the grammatical order. (2) Also the rationale of keeping "Indian" prefixed before the title is not clear. Since it's an established fact that the state of "Jammu and Kashmir" is administered by India not to confuse with a larger Kashmir region which includes Pakistani-controlled autonomous territories of Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Chinese-controlled areas of Aksai Chin and the Trans-Karakoram Tract (ceded by Pakistan to China in 1963) therefor it's obvious that the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status can only be done by India and not by Pakistan or China since none of their controlled territories is called "Jammu and Kashmir". (3) The current title also seems to disregard WP:Neutrality as it indicates to the "unilateral action" done by India, which again is debatable since bilateral issue is over the entire Kashmir region which includes the territories controlled by Pakistan and China too, not just over the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Hemant Dabral^Talk 10:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose see my proposal 2 and rationale below. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Agreed. This title does not afford neutrality to the subject. —- Hrishter (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Indian revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status → Abrogation of Article 370

per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, Lets call it what it really is i.e. "Abrogation of Article 370" and used by an overwhelming amount of WP:MAINSTREAM sources. "Special status" etc are political gimmicks and makes less sense for encyclopaedia. Google search of this term "abrogation of article 370" within quotes throws 1.2 Million results from Google News (reliable media) who use the exact phrase as it is. e.g. India Today Abrogation of Article 370, Indian express etc. Whereas googling "Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir" gives only 1K results of Google News. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - Please see Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 68#International reactions to the annexation of Jammu and Kashmir by India, where the same ground covered. In particular, I pointed out that all the major international newspapers use exactly the terminology "revocation of special status" [4]. Plain Google counts matter little. Indian newspapers and web sites would drown out everything else. "Abrogation of Article 370" is a term popularised by BJP and all news-reading Indian public understand it. But, outside India, it would amount to gobbledygook. Secondly, Article 370 was not "abrogated" as noted by numerous experts. You cannot knowingly misuse terminology just because the man on the street does so. Wikipedia should be an authoritative source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

reflist.
References

Thanks for the kind reply. Whether you should call it a "partial" abrogation or a practically complete abrogation is debatable but it is not disputed that this is an abrogation of an existing law. Which is why the reliable media has been using it. IMHO "special status" is as much (if not more) gobbledygook as "Article 370". "Abrogation of Article 370" also clarifies to the reader that this has something to do with the constitution/law which is what it is i.e. per WP:PRECISE. The constitution never mentions any such "Special status" it is a manufactured word. I am not denying that reliable media has used "Special status" but reliable media has also used "Abrogation of Article 370" as the phrase to refer to this incident. We have to choose from among these 2. And when one has 1.2 Million hits while the other barely a thousand, then the case is quite easy to decide. I presented 2 sources, You have cherry-picked 8 sources from that 1k, now I can pick 16 sources from 1.2 Million. Where does it stop ? If you disagree then so be it. Lets see what others have to say.--DBigXrayᗙ 17:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRECISION is the third criterion. RECOGNIZABILITY is the first. Your suggestion (which doesn't even mention Kashmir for heaven's sake!) is an example of WP:OBSCURITY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

First, my proposal is based on WP:COMMONNAME used be reliable sources and not a made up name by me. Second, there is no policy that requires that all articles related to Kashmir must have the noun Kashmir in the title, If it exists, you can point me to that. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Since we all know that Article 370 of the Constitution of India is still in place and only those sections of Article 370 pertaining to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, have been repealed. Though an adddional Article 35A of the Constitution of India which also devolved exclusive citizenship and residency rights to the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been completely abolished, thus the "Abrogation of Article 370" is not a fitting title.

Also, given the complex legal definition surrounding this act of the revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status, we need a title that can meet somewhere in the middle ground for everyone to be agreed upon. Even the title you have proposed is still incomplete and ambiguous as it should've been extended to "Abrogation of Article 370 and 35A of the Constitution of India" but as I mentioned above, it still isn't a fitting title since it avoids the fact that Article 370 is not completely abrogated but a few sections of the article have been repealed. If you want some other title that can address the true nature of this act, I can propose a few such; Abrogation of the special provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution of India or Abrogation of the special provisions of Article 370 relating to Jammu and Kashmir. But the problem is, if we choose a title that can legally and literally define the act of revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status in its true nature, the proposed title could result in an unusually long and complex form for a reader to relate to and may add more confusion instead. In that case we'll have to stick with the plain and simple title "Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir".— Hemant Dabral^Talk 02:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment, what you have said is factually true. Whether you should call it a "partial" abrogation or a practically complete abrogation is debatable but it is not disputed that this is an abrogation of an existing law. Which is why the reliable media has been using it. There is no doubt that there can be many titles for this article. But whatever we choose has to agree with some agreed upon guidelines. WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRECISE for example. Wikipedia has to follow what WP:MAINSTREAM media is publishing. and when we have millions of sites following something it defines the WP:COMMONNAME of that. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Conditional support - This addresses the neutrality aspect of the existing title, but abrogation, in its strictest terms, has not occurred. As Hemant Dabral has pointed out, a more accurate terminology becomes unwieldy, and a simpler title conveys the same meaning, while more detailed analysis into the legal aspects can occur in the article. —- Hrishter (talk) 10:22, 1 October 2019 (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.

Genocide Watch

@Pali Upadhyay: I would be delighted if you can explain the reason why views of Genocide Watch, an organisation of no consequence, published here should be included in Wikipedia since you have constantly reverted my edits without proper reason. The facts claimed on this self-published source can easily be disproved by citing well-published sources. Therefore, this source can ATLEAST be removed as per the criteria of improper fact-checking in WP:RS.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The reactions section is dedicated to reaction of nations and organizations to the matter at hand and not as statements of facts about the matter itself. Therefore as per WP:ABOUTSELF it is quite appropriate to cite Genocide Watch's official website as a source for its own reaction as I've already explained in the edit descriptions. The claim of an "organization of no consequence" is nothing more than a mere personal opinion which I suspect is of a partisan nature. There's precident of include the reaction of the Genocide Watch as in witnessed in articles relating to Syria, DRC, Yemen, etc. Regardless to present a fair and balanced viewpoint all notable reactions need to be accounted for. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay: Thanks for your response, but please do not resort to personal attacks on me (by alleging partisan bias). You didn’t explain what to do with the presence of highly disputable claims on that self-published source. That source can be questioned solely on the basis of that. Is it spreading propaganda? It is clearly not a news agency! Please explain.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll requote myself, "The reactions section is dedicated to reaction of nations and organizations to the matter at hand and not as statements of facts about the matter itself. Therefore as per WP:ABOUTSELF it is quite appropriate to cite Genocide Watch's official website as a source for its own reaction as I've already explained in the edit descriptions."

The source has been cited as a source for its own reaction to the events of the article which is permissible even if we consider it to be a self-publishing source. The source itself isn't any different from Amnesty International ot Human Rights Watch and has merely raised concerns of a similar nature. It only claims that certain conditions of the situation have been fulfilled which itself aren't far divergent from the concerns raised by others and does not fit the criteria of being an exceptional claim. Pali Upadhyay (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pali Upadhyay: Read the "ten conditions" given by that source. WP:ABOUTSELF would have been valid if those ten conditions were not included in the article. And as far as those ten conditions are concerned, I would like to give an example. I do not roam around calling members of a particular religion "terrorists". Then why is that source generalising every member of that religion as being called "terrorists, criminals, etc" in India?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Pali Upadhyay, is there a WP:SECONDARY source that covered this material? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the source generalising every member of any religion let alone using pejorative for them. Not that it's relevant considering it is only mentioned as a claim made by the Organization and not ascribed as a statement of fact in the article.

The source material has been covered by some news agencies. [[5]][[6]] Pali Upadhyay (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• The source really says that "Muslims are being called criminals, terrorists, etc"... Isn't that generalisation enough?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

I suggest the following changes backed up by the citations and robust logic.

1. Clampdown and lockdown has been used interchangeably in the article. For consistence, do not retain both, please standardised these to just one, e.g. "lockdown".

2. Lede should capture the essence of the whole article. Expand the word "lockdown" to "preventive lockdown" in the second sentence of the lede "The Kashmir Valley was placed under a virtual 'lockdown'". If you need citations to prove that these lockdowns are preventive in nature, then those citations already exist in the article, see citation <ref name=trtkashmir/> <ref name=thehindu18aug/> .

3. In the item2 above, pipe the "preventive lockdown" to preventive lockdown

4. In the last sentence of the lede 'and now they can be "owners of our own destiny"', please delete the word "they" and sentence would read as 'and now can be "owners of our own destiny"'.

Thanks. 222.164.212.168 (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 18:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2019 Kashmir lockdown

For criteria 2, 3 and 4 in WP:OVERLAP. This article basically is the same as the “Government clampdown” section and is unlikely to expanded significantly. — Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which article are you proposing to merge into which article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Kashmir lockdown with this article.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 00:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Merge - redirect it to the section on "Government clampdown". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Merge per Kautilya3. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169 and Kautilya3:Should I just blank the article and leave a redirect? Cut-pasting that article here will be messy. And it will not add new content.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 00:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I have blanked the article and redirected it without copy-pasting stuff since, as explained in previous comment, that would be messy and have no benefit or new content.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 00:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vaibhavfro: I think it’s too much premature decision. Some details from that article should be here. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I have read that article. It was a very short one. All of the information it contained was present in the "Government clampdown" and "International reactions" section. And that article was orphaned till a few days ago. The person who created it didn't even bother to add it as {{Main}} in this article.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 02:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

But still I think that international and local reactions have place in the encyclopaedia. Include it in the place appropriately. Don’t just redirect it, it’s controversial topic. We had voted for merge, not for mere redirect. For these type of controversial topic, you should nominate it for deletion so that consensus can come. You should revert your redirect or another editor will do it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: You probably didn’t read my reply fully. Everything from that article is already present in this article, even the international reactions.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 05:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. @Harshil169: I have addressed your concern about some content being left out by copy-pasting entire "reactions" section in this edit. With this, all the content that was present in 2019 Kashmir lockdown has been effectively MERGED.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 06:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Has article 370 been repealed?

Editors should take a look at this PIB release. It mentions a "Resolution for Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution of India". We need to review the "Legal Aspects" section thoroughly, preferably with the help of a professional Indian lawyer.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 05:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, that is why we don't regard governments as reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The legal aspects have been debated for the last 30-40 years and they are pretty clear to all of us. What parts of it concern you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the resolutions passed by the parliament were needed for the presidential order. Where and when, if not how, the concurrence of the state government was obtained? Who gave the concurrence? Was it the state governor or the parliament. And back to the first doubt, were the resolutions passed by the parliaments (both the houses) were to give concurrence on behalf of state assembly or for the approval of the presidential order? Confusing, isn't it? That's why I have asked for professional opinion. And for your information, it was me who bothered to add the "Legal Aspects" section. Rest of the people were busy documenting the clampdown.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 02:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

if you read the cited sources carefully in the Legal aspects section carefully, you will notice that they are vague and sometimes contradict each other. This is expected since journalists have written these. I think we should base that section primarily on government press releases OR let a professional person review it. I have time and again raised this issue in previous sections but to no avail. Looks like no one likes brainstorming law. Even I will stop bothering after this. Regards— Vaibhavafro ^💬 03:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten that you had added the section. I was reading through the content when you were adding it, and didn't find any serious issues. I can review it again if you wish.

The only question that really matters is who gave the concurrence. Since there were two presidential orders, the first one issued with the "consent of the state government" and the second one without, we can see that the government is treating the two orders in different ways. For the first order, most sources agree that the governor gave the consent. He was the only "government" in J&K when the order was issued. For the second order, the government did the jugglery of substituting "constitutive assembly" by "legislative assembly" and getting the Parliament to pass a resolution. So, we can assume that the Parliament was acting as the "legislative assembly" to provide backing for the second order. But the second order did nothing more than rubbing it in. The first order had already done the deed. So, nobody really bothers about the second order. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a useful interview of Harish Salve that unpicks the details (though Karan Thapar is being a bit too noisy for my comfort). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• User:Tamravidhir would you like to help Vaibhav in this thread? regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the "expert needed" template since I think that things will get crystal clear after Supreme Court judgment on petitions. Thank you all for taking the time out to reply. Regards— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sardar Patel's role in 370

• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/unwriting-history-creating-myths/article29912601.ece

User:Kautilya3 as you can see from the article I linked, there is a concerted effort in misleading/misinforming about the role of Nehru and Patel. Their roles need to be clearly mentioned in the article. And this misinformation effort may also be covered. Please help in doing the needful. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Patel's involvement in India's Kashmir policy was rather more complicated than either the Left or the Right admit these days, but I think the Right is closer to the truth. The fact is that Nehru and Patel had a serious riff over Kashmir in January 1948, just before Gandhi's assassination. Patel submitted his resignation, and Nehru offered resignation. The ball was in Gadhi's court to resolve the dispute, but Gandhi was killed before he was able to do so. Then both Nehru and Patel patched up in a manner they imagined Gandhi would have liked them to. Patel's way was to leave it to Nehru. So, everything Patel did after this point can only be regarded as sanity-checking and supporting Nehru's policy. It cannot be said to have been his own policy. Show me any liberal who admits this. Not even Srinath Raghavan.

Regarding Article 370, Patel convinced the Congress Parliamentary Party to approve it, using certain arguments. V. Shankar wrote about them. But the same arguments were repeated by N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar the next day in the Constituent Assembly. They are in public record. Everybody is welcome to read them. This scholarly comment explains the gist:

Gopalaswami Ayyangar had assured those who denounced this special provision "that in due course J&K will become ripe for the same sort of integration as has taken place in the case of the other states". Such expression of hope about complete integration was indicative of the true nature of the Indian government's policy towards the state right from the beginning.

We can be sure that this "true nature" was Patel's contribution, not Nehru's. Nehru imagined that J&K could be permanently an autonomous unit within India. And, we can read Sheikh Abdullah's dismissal and imprisonment in 1953 as a break from this, when Nehru came around to Patel's way. And Nehru used the loopholes in Article 370 just as Patel would have done.

Was the time now "ripe for integration"? At an international level, it seems to be. But, within Kashmir, there is no such indication. The key test will be how long it will take to hold elections in Kashmir.

But, on the whole, I am not uncomfortable with the Right's invocation of Patel to justify itself. It is certainly on the path that Patel paved (and Nehru was too, as indicated earlier). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agree : Should be added. Leaving it upto @Kautilya3 and DBigXray: to add it.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Pre-emptive disarming of local police

RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_revocation_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir%27s_special_status&type=revision&diff=910293193&oldid=910282459

@Ms Sarah Welch: Regarding the diff above, is this a sufficiently reputable source for the claim that local state police were pre-emptively disarmed?: https://www.thequint.com/voices/blogs/kashmir-valley-article-370-curfew-communication-shutdown-personal-account

There is active 'Information warfare' taking place around Kashmir at the moment and the ongoing communications blackout makes knowing who to trust quite challenging, this is the official government stance: https://freepresskashmir.com/2019/08/03/rumours-of-policemen-being-asked-to-deposit-weapons-baseless-malicious-adgp-muneer-khan/

Bear in mind that tourists, non-residents and Amarnath Yatris were evacuated on pretext of 'credible terrorist threat'... --Edit-pi (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

@Edit-pi: No. This is a blog based on an alleged “personal account”, questionable at the least. Blogs from websites are also non-RS. Please delete. There is misinformation campaign from all sides, to be fair. Please keep a watch on whether the source verifies and even if it verifies, ensure that the source is neither questionable nor on one of our WP:PUS and other lists. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Confirmed with reputable sources: https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/disarmed-fall-guys-of-article-370/cid/1696748 & https://apnews.com/b791a83976704e71a440ea43934a5be4 --Edit-pi (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edit-pi: Why are these "reputable"? Indian media and local journalists working for non-Indian news distributors – on all sides – have their left or right bias or political affiliations in reporting the same news (see Paid news in India, past analysis by WBG and other editors on Indian media). If we do find better multiple sources (not blogs, not youtube, not twitter, etc), then the best we can do, per our NPOV guidelines, is to avoid using wikipedia voice and to clearly in-text attribute the summary to the author of that news/analysis/opinion with "according to ... ". As you may know, it is a standard procedure in numerous countries that the police be disarmed when they go on duty to manage civil disturbances / protest rallies in order to prevent the accidental shooting and death of civilians in the fog of confusion. I have no idea what Indian procedures are, but I urge care in inflammatory summaries in wikipedia that ignore any views/interview of the Kashmiri/Jammu/Ladakh/Indian civilians and Kashmiri/Jammu/Ladakh/Indian authorities. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edit-pi: I have to generally agree with Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs). The way I see it is that the major neutral third-party sources such as the NY Times, Guardian, Washington Post, which generally vet their stories more rigorously, have not carried stories about the disarming of the Jammu and Kashmir police. This can mean two things, either they weren't disarmed across their spectrum, or their numbers are not that large relative to the Indian para-military presence. Everyone who has been to Indian controlled Kashmir knows that it is an armed camp, in which on any highway, a military truck is parked every 50 yards. Given such an overwhelming, generally ethnically non-Kashmiri, military- and paramilitary, presence, what does it matter if a small group of ethnically Kashmiri policemen is disarmed or not? I would suggest that you self-revert until you have a more tangible source. There are more relevant stories, such as the one in the New York Times on October 31, 2019, co-authored by Jeffrey Gettleman, their Pulitzer Prize-winning South Asia bureau chief, describing the plight of Kashmiri children who haven't gone to school in the last thirteen weeks because the schools are still closed. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I have had attributed the sources to avoid Wikipedia voice as you suggested while I was writing this reply before Fowler&fowler reverted my edit entirely... the joys of Wiki collaboration

Could I humbly ask why all other statements about Kashmir, in this and other articles on Wikipedia, based on Indian or Pakistani news sources aren't all subject to the attribution vs WikiVoice discussion? I have been was been planning to start a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding Indian and Pakistani news sources on Kashmir anyway in light of these:

• https://caravanmagazine.in/reportage/ani-reports-government-version-truth
• http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713658719
• https://himalmag.com/kashmirs-media-story/
• https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-drumbeaters-of-dystopia/article29385937.ece
• https://in.reuters.com/article/india-kashmir-media-idINKCN1UY1YA
• https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-communication-blackout-distorts-public-discourse-in-india/a-50208582

Disarming of local police is not standard in Kashmir, if anything in the past decade there has been a militarisation of local police as well as huge recruitment and central funding allocation. I had more to say but I'm not thinking straight right now, might add it later.

@Fowler&fowler:My editing style is such that I keep the editing tab open for a long time while I research my edit in other tabs, as such the first time I became aware of your replies was when I was ready to submit my edits to the Social media, activism and misinformation section. After submitting those edits I proceeded to read and reply to your comments here. In the process of doing so I saw that Ms Sarah Welch had suggested attributing the sources rather than using WikiVoice, a suggestion I wholly agreed with and thus made what I saw as a sensible, conciliatory and consensus edit. Clearly you didn't see it that way...

My edit based on the the sources indicated that 'many' not all police personnel from Kashmir specifically were disarmed. This is relevant because just like the travel advisory to non-residents claiming a imminent terror threat (for which no evidence has been forthcoming), the suspending of all communications, the surge of paramilitaries into an already heavily militarised region and all the other measures in the clampdown, it was pre-emptive and unprecedented. It also runs counter to the narrative that revocation is what the Kashmiri populace desired and that the situation is normal. The story about crisis in children's education is not more relevant, it is also relevant.

Any replies or further comments I have may be delayed by days or weeks. --Edit-pi (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit-pi: See this and similar articles. I largely support the efforts of Fowler&fowler, Kautilya3 and few others in this and related articles. This is one of the sensitive and inflammatory articles related to Kashmir, and we need to pay particular attention to WP:Due, WP:WWIN, other guidelines, what we summarize and how we summarize it. NYT and other sources, as F&F notes above, meet our RS guidelines better. If something is reported once (late August 2019), and thereafter it gets negligible coverage for weeks/months, it raises a WP:Due/notability/accuracy question. In contrast, if another topic such as closed schools and kids not going to school gets 10x or more sustained coverage, including in international newspapers, then that is notable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Buddhist-majority Ladakh?

I see it stated in this article and, of course, obsessively in the Indian media, that Ladakh is a Buddhist-majority region. However according to the Ladakh article,

The region's population is split roughly in half between the districts of Leh and Kargil. 76.87% population of Kargil is Muslim (mostly Shia),cited to: {{Cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tarun-vijay/the-right-view/Endangered-Ladakh/articleshow/2742608.cms|title=Endangered Ladakh - Times of India|website=The Times of India}}</ref> with a total population of 140,802, while that of Leh is 66.40% Buddhist, with a total population of 133,487, as per the 2011 census.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www(dot)census2011(dot)co(dot)in/census/district/622-kargil.html|title=Kargil District Population Census 2011, Jammu and Kashmir literacy sex ratio and density|publisher=}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.census2011(dot)co(dot)in/census/district/621-leh.html|title=Leh District Population Census 2011, Jammu and Kashmir literacy sex ratio and density|publisher=}}</ref>

From the sources cited, the two districts of Ladakh, Kargil and Leh, the total population = 143,872 (Kargil) + 133,487 (Leh) = 277,359. Total Muslim = 108,239 (Kargil, =108,239/143,872 x 100% = 75.23%) + 19,057 (Leh, = 19,057/133,487 x 100% = 14.27%). This gives a total Muslim population of Ladakh to be = 127,296 = 127,296/277,359 x 100% = 45.895% of the total population.

The total Buddhist population is 20,126 (Kargil, = 20,126/143,872 x 100% = 13.98%) + 88,635 (Leh, = 88,635/133,487 x 100% = 66.39%) = 108,761 = (108,761/277,359 x 100%) = 39.21%.

The cited source is "census2011(dot)co(dot)in" a blacklisted cite and not "censusindia(dot)gov(dot)in" (the official site), but the first site is used in Wikipedia and seems to be offering data that in the official site requires signing up, and then only in raw form.

It appears that Ladakh does not have a Buddhist majority, but rather a Muslim plurality, or relative majority, and a Buddhist minority. Am I correct in interpreting the data? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

PS It would have helped had I read on in the lead of the Ladakh article. It says, "The main religious groups in the region are Muslims (mainly Shia) (46%), Tibetan Buddhists (40%), Hindus (12%) and others (2%)." This seems to jibe with my monumental computation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

References

removal of sourced content causing cite error

Hi Fowler&fowler. Your recent edits have apparently caused cite-errors. Any plan to fix that?— Vaibhavafro ^💬 15:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

You must explain this edit of yours. Who gave you the authority to remove sourced information and references to determine what is “fluff” and what is not? I have reverted those edits.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 16:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I've been around Wikipedia for a very long time. I can smell violation of WP policy without going into the specific details. If you want details, I can provide them. At the time I made that edit (in this version), the section "Legal Aspects" had 921 words. It was being summarized in the lead in 272 words. The section Government clampdown" had 989 words; it was being summarized in the lead in 61 words. All I did was to level the playing field. I reduced the first summary to 82 words, which was still > 61. Preserving "sourced content" is not the only imperative of Wikipedia. There is WP:SS for the lead; the is WP:DUE for the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and Kautilya3: I understand that, and that is why I went ahead and made some edits to balance the lead by reducing the legal aspects. However, I was concerned about the fact that important cites would have been lost if I hadn't picked up your reference deletion (which had caused the cite error). Please note that I have no intention of fighting with anyone and I want to work collaboratively with everyone. Best regards,— Vaibhavafro ^💬 21:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

If citations get broken, it is best to wait for 24 hours giving time for bots to pick them up. If not, we can always go digging. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"@Vaibhavafro: I didn't realize I had broken citations. Apologies. What did I mean when I casually, and provocatively (more apologies) used "fluff," (i.e. something insubstantial, like wisps of cotton)? I meant issues of the following sort: Is the India president's name necessary when he is a constitutional head, whose office, not he personally, implements an elected government's policy? More importantly, for a reader unfamiliar with Kashmir, does the paragraph enlighten? Does it give information about how limited autonomy has changed? Do the bland numbers of legislative triumphs tell anything about the legality of the revocation? Contrast Britannica's description:

"In August 2019 the union government effectively suspended the constitution of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and set the framework for its bifurcation into the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the union territory of Ladakh. Under this framework, the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir will be under the administration of a lieutenant governor appointed by the president of India, aided by a chief minister and a council of ministers appointed by that lieutenant governor. It will have a Legislative Assembly, with members elected to five-year terms, though it may be dissolved by the lieutenant governor before the term expires. Unlike state legislatures, which have constitutional authority over matters of public order and policing, those matters will remain under the domain of the union government (through the lieutenant governor as its representative)."

Do you see the difference? Which version has more information about the change in constitutional terms? Which version is merely skimming the surface? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler and Kautilya3: Yes, this Britannica version is more explainatory in terms of legal status. However, info on how (actually) the revocation happened should also be present in the lead since that is what the article is about. I have further reduced statistics from lead section; will appreciate further improvements.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 22:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

In the post that I wrote a few hours ago and then cancelled, I pointed to the original lead I wrote. It was a quick and dirty job when I changed the article title from "International reactions..." or something. It is worth giving it a read. Leads always get fattened up with irrelevant detail. That is the disease of WP:Lead fixation or the elevator pitch. Somebody needs to come and clean out all the shrubbery periodically. Thanks to Fowler for attending to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

That is the normal process. I never check who did what. I can't because I've committed plenty Himalayan blunders myself. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding POV external sites

Admin peacemaker67 has sounded caution about using sources that are not third-party in contentious areas such as Kashmir. The same applies to external sites. Vaibhavafro (talk · contribs) has added the video of the Indian prime minister's address to the Indian nation. The speech, in the nature of justifying a government decision, is not a third-party view. Viabhavafro has also taken out a video of the Economist's South Asia Bureau Chief (clearly a third party) discussing the issue. I have restored the last edit before his. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

With all due civilty, an administrator's opinion is not sacrosanct. I had only added an external link, not content; therefore this is not a violation of WP:NPOV. But since I don't have addtional stamina to pursue this, I will not contest further. However, letting that Economist's South Asia Bureau Chief's video is not justified by any means; it is clearly indicative of promotion. There are hundreds of equally or more significant discussions out there. Therefore, keeping this one discussion is not justified. Regards— Vaibhavafro ^💬 19:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

How is it not justified? It is third-party, i.e. belonging neither to India nor Pakistan nor yet China, the disputants. The Economist is widely regarded as a reliable source in its print version. I'm happy to add other third-party sites. I have neither watched the Indian prime minister's video nor the Economist video. I'm arguing only on foundational principles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I am not questioning The Economist's credibility as a WP:RS. I am only pointing out that including it in the "external links" would be tantamount to an WP:UNDUE weightage to it, given that other equally-significant discussions exist.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, I had not added the video of Indian PM speech, only its transcript. It would have been a valuable resource for future reference.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If there are other good analyses, please feel free to add them. How exactly is this supposed to be a violation of "NPOV"? And, make sure you are not trying to establish an equivalence between the Prime Minister's speech and the Economist. That would be completely ridiculous. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@RaviC: Please note that you cannot cite to opinion pieces, promoting the Hindutva line on Kashmir, originally published in an Indian newspaper, which cynically in the last paragraph, mention LGBT rights. I expect you to self-revert, and not make such edits in the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll self-revert; there are plenty of other sources which mention this as well and the topic of human rights in the erstwhile state Penal Code is a subject that should be discussed. However, your assertion that any pro-revocation position is "Hindutva" is itself a violation of WP:NPOV, especially since many "anti-Hindutva" parties from India's left (as described in the article) have supported this move. --RaviC (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say the pro-revocation position is Hindutva, but that the cited article, especially the bias, or slant on information, about the unfolding of historical events in Kashmir, correlates highly to the Hindutva position, and more generally to the current Indian government position. It is certainly not a reliable third-party (i.e. not from India, Pakistan, China, or Kashmir) source. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It is Hindutva. 100%. "Full integration of Jammu and Kashmir" was the key demand if Jammu Praja Parishad and it has been integrated into the BJS/BJP ideology from day 1. And, the Jammu Praja Parishad is now an "integral part" of BJP, and it brought down the elected government of J&K before all this happened. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no doubt that revocation was a core part of the BJP's manifesto, however, are you really going to describe people such as Mayawati or Kejriwal as supporters of Hindutva simply because they agreed with this position? --RaviC (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rolling stones gather mass. But the stone is the stone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, including all of the brilliant discussion here would not be possible as there are too many of them. Plus, I am not equating PM Speech with The Wire analysis. What makes you think so? Including just only The Wire and The Economist's discussion here would be WP:UNDUE since it represents a partisan, leftist view of things; that analysis is not neutral and doesn't even scratch the surface of the vast geopolitical aspect of the revocation. Therefore, it isn't brilliant enough in my opinion.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Those were your two consecutive edits. In fact, it smacks of being a WP:POINTy edit.

So, you are claiming that The Economist is "partisan" and "leftist"? Do you think you will be able to prove that if I take this to WP:NPOVN? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Can you please first tell why you want to include that discussion here? It isn’t unique in any way. Furthermore, including numerous other similar discussions is prohibited according to WP:LINKFARM. The Wire is widely considered to be an ultra leftist outlet, much like Saamana is an ultra rightist one.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 11:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

First of all, you shouldn't WP:SHOUT.

Secondly, it is the perspective of the South Asia bureau chief (hence, a top analyst) of The Economist, a leading international magazine. And, the interview is solely about the "international reactions", inserted in a page that is 80% about precisely that, international reactions. Its relevance is entirely obvious to any sane reader.

What The Wire is entirely irrelevant because it is an interview. But again you are day-dreaming with your claim of The Wire being "widely considered to be an ultra leftist outlet". Again it won't stand up at WP:NPOVN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems as if that logic doesn’t work on Wikipedia, and even Wikipedia acknowledges that on WP:CLUE. You may proceed to do whatever you want.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 12:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. You should not be contesting policy-based edits on spurious grounds. You would be wasting everybody's time by doing so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: If you haven’t noticed, please read my comments again. I still think that adding only that particular link is a violation of WP:DUE. The rest of the logic I gave was, obviously, purely intellectual (and devoid of WP:CLUE). However, I still don’t see how this is not a violation of NPOV.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I will be adding videos from well-known third party news sources (nothing from India, Pakistan, China). 15:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That was me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

External links and third party sources

@Fowler&fowler: What you just added are nothing but news reports. I suggest you self-revert (as per WP:LINKFARM) and add the The Economist south Asia Bureau discussion (I won't Oppose adding that now).— Vaibhavafro ^💬 20:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not the relevant regulation. It is WP:External links. There is nothing there that prohibits a presentation of neutral, third-party, presentations. On the other hand, official links, which yours effectively is, are to be kept to a minimum. I will also be running my red pen through the article and removing a large number of statements cited to Indian, Pakistani, or Chinese news reports. Indian media especially whether left-wing, right-wing, or centrist, is chock full of reports that you can never find in third-party news sources, even when the topic is the country of the third-party source (such as reports in Indian media about the Swedish minister for foreign affairs, Ann Linde, asking for withdrawal of the restrictions in Kashmir.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: That is not the issue. Why do we need mere news reports in the external links section? I have not seen this happening anywhere else.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 03:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

They are not news reports. I can't cite them in the main body, as they have not textual content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

And WP:LINKFARM is applicable here. Please read the lead section of WP:External links carefully.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 03:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I will defer to @Kautilya3:'s opinion on appropriate external links. I am troubled by the en masse removal of the third-party video reports. The Indian government's heavy-handed communication blockade has made it so that very few print news reports are able to give an authentic account of the plight of the Kashmiri people. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, I cannot cite the video reports in the main body as these reports have no textual content; oral yes, but none written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: This is with reference to your "red pen" comment above. Please ensure that you do not remove any legit content. Furthermore, you appear to be alleging that all Indian media, whether left-wing, right-wing, or centrist, are baseless (which sounds funny to say the least). Can you prove this? Pinging @Kautilya3: for comments on this.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, here is a non-Indian news report covering the Swedish minister for foreign affairs statement which you mentioned above. Sweden is basically a geopolitically insignificant country and that's why it recieves low press coverage. Same wouldn't have been true if it were Russia's foreign minister here instead.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 09:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Fowler did not say that they were "baseless". He said that they are not WP:THIRDPARTY, which is true enough. There is no strict requirement that every source cited on Wikipedia needs to be THIRDPARTY, but the main line of the narrative must align to THIRDPARTY sources. You have been undermining the Indian sources yourself by branding them as "ultra left-wing" etc. The only alternative in such a situation is to remove the Indian sources altogether, at least all the news sources.

As to the large number of external links, my position would be that the article is practically content-free. So I don't see any harm in incuding a LINKFARM that provides some real substance to this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Well established Indian sources such as The Times of India, The Economic Times, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Press Trust of India definitely qualify WP:IIS in my opinion. These are neutral sources almost all of the time when concerning India. They shouldn’t be unnecessarily challenged.

By Fowler’s logic, we should remove all American sources from the 9/11 article. Thirdly, my personal political tilt is (as of now) slightly towards the left (yet mixed-up), given Modi’s bizarre economic performance; I don’t show this tilt while I am logged into Wikipedia. So please don’t suspect that I am a Sanghi (RSS guy) if I call ‘The Wire’ a "left-wing" source. As far as the linkfarm issue goes, we can include 4-5 links but not more than that.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 11:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

And again, the external links should be composed of such a mixture which doesn’t give WP:UNDUE weightage to one narrative.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 11:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

In the Council on Foreign Relations debate that I added last night, Ashutosh Varshney points out that the Indian Press has not been playing its role of being "counter-majoritarian". He says that the Government and the Parliament are expected to be majoritarian, but the Supreme Court, the Press, and various other institutions (I am guessing, the Election Commission, the watch dog institutions, the CBI etc.) are required to be counter-majoritarian. But they are not functioning as such. Majoritarianism has become the norm. The Hindu, NDTV and The Wire are well-known for taking an independent line. You cannot and should not undermine them. (By the way WP:ISS has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Even, WP:RS, which is probably what you meant, has nothing to do with it. We are discussing WP:THIRDPARTY. The Indian Press, as a whole, fails the test of being THIRDPARTY, as per Varshney.)

When there are disputes, we need to search for sources that as far away from the disputes as possible, hoping that they will present a neutral view. Your personal political leanings are entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Responding to your last point, what "narrative" are you speaking of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I wrote “WP:IIS”, not WP:ISS. You probably confused, but that’s OK. The “narrative” I was talking about is that Kashmir is currently a ‘jail-cell’. While it is definitely not ‘free’, it isn’t as extreme as a torturous ‘jail-cell’. The true ‘jail-cell’ stuff is happening in China (Uighur Muslims), not in Kashmir. This is one counter-narrative.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 13:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Another counter-narrative is the alleged involvement of Pakistan. Most western 'third party' sources imply that the present situation is the handiwork of the Indian state, thereby completely suppressing the Pakistan angle. And most of them don't even report the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits (and the accompanying genocide of Hindus). Those who do mention thid brush it off as mere "displacement" due to "ongoing violence". Not representing the above counter-narratives in external links goes against the very heart of WP:NPOV.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

How many Pandits were there in a population (of the Kashmir Vally) which since the first Census of the British Indian Emp;ire in 1871 and every ten years thereaffter has been 95% Muslim? Please be very careful in how you answer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Page name change from "Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir" to "Revocation of the temporary special status of Jammu and Kashmir"

It was mentioned many news articles, that the special status was "temporary" like this, this, this, this. even wikipedia's own article Article 370 of the Constitution of India, mentions the status as "temporary". so i suggest to add the word "temporary" to make the article more accurateFollowbrocode (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

we will try to make a consensus on this here, but if i didn't get any counterpoints then i will change the title.thank youFollowbrocode (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

since no counter point are there, so i consider it as a "go ahead".thank youFollowbrocode (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)