Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir

edit
(
)
A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash
A J&K policeman holding a pellet gun during a violent clash

** ALT1:... that ...security forces in India also use slingshots for crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir? Source: The Central Reserve Police Force uses a variety of weapons, including pellet guns, tear gas, and slingshots that hurl stones when glass marbles aren’t available. National Geographic

Source: "The army has recommended replacing pellet guns used by paramilitary forces and state police for crowd control in Kashmir with less lethal weapons such as sound cannons, pepper shotguns and chilli grenades." Hindustan Times
  • Comment: image is entirely optional, only text DYK or text+Image DYK can also be considered. ALT2 if approved would need a different image 2

Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk), DBigXray (talk), and Kautilya3 (talk). Nominated by DBigXray (talk) at 18:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Everything looks great. Can you pick a hook and image should I can approve it? All hooks should work, and both images do as well. DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DannyS712 test, thanks a lot for your kind comment and review. we did a quick poll among ourselves, we feel that ALT0 is the best among the three along with pic 1, please proceed with ALT0. DBigXrayᗙ 04:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Also notify User:DannyS712 DBigXrayᗙ 05:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: thanks. The test sig was a mistake, the real reviewer is this account. I'll pass this now.
Thank you User:DannyS712. I made a minor correction in the caption above. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 13:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: still passes --DannyS712 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Put this on hold, please. Unless I manage to read the entirety and (possibly) get over my initial feelings of slapping a POV tag. If you see no editorial efforts of mine within the next 48 hrs. at the article, feel free to proceed. ∯WBGconverse 13:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @DannyS712:--This's is a blatant POV piece; manifested as an highly effective praise of the Indian machinery. The author has been careful in weeding out any source (of which there is an abundance) that criticizes the methods.
That I'm not involved with the article/ broader area in any editorial manner (and nether with the author in any manner), I don't see any reason to not perform a second-review.
This's a solid ☒N decline from me on grounds of Rule 4 (NPOV). ∯WBGconverse 14:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Winged Blades of Godric thanks for sharing your opinion on the article. The article authored by DiplomatTesterMan as it stands right now covers all aspect of the crowd control in J&K and covers the victims from both sides. This article has recently been created so it does "not" need to pass a GA criteria for being able to pass the DYK nomination stage. That said there is always some room for improvement everywhere, even in a GA/ FA article. So lets contribute collaboratively. If you can elaborate your specific problems with the article on the article talk page and your suggestions on how it can be addressed we all can see what more can be done to improve this article. regardsDBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: I'll re-read the article. I'm sorry I didn't catch this when doing my review --DannyS712 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 it would be very helpful for the article if after your review you can also share (here or on article talk) your suggestions to improve if you find any "major" issues. regards DBigXrayᗙ 16:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: The article mentions in the lead the number of protestors killed in 2018 - "51 rioters being killed during clashes and 37 rioters being killed during encounters". The article mentions how over 100 protestors were killed in police firing in 2010. The article mentions how "thousands of people in Jammu and Kashmir have suffered pellet wounds, hundreds have eye-injuries, and at least 14 people have died due to their pellet injuries." The article also talks about "One of the youngest pellet guns victims is a 19 month old child, Heeba Jan, who suffered injuries in 2018. Another young person to suffer from pellet injuries is Insha Malik (Insha Ahmed), who was left blind as a result of her injuries." The article also mentions pellet guns are criticised. The article also mentions how tear gas shells have killed people. It also says how curfews have been held for long periods... Winged Blades of Godric is inaccurate according to me in saying that this is NPOV. I would request someone else to go through it, or even better..... expand it so the NPOV is sorted and we can get over with this, rather than say that this is a highly effective praise of the Indian machinery which should be meaningless here... I also think Winged Blades of Godric is throwing his own highly effective propaganda around if they can't help improve the article despite clearly knowing its faults and saying they are uninvolved despite "trying" to touch it up.
@DannyS712: Even after this if you think it is NPOV should I create an entirely new section in the article called "Criticism" and stuff it with criticism of the methods of India dating all the way back to 1947, about the horrendousness of Indian crowd control methods and how severely inhumane and barbaric they are... that is according to the sources Winged Blades is probably talking about? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
p.s. Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Without an explanation from WBG about what specifically they object to, and given that, having re-read this, I believe it to be NPOV, this review is still a pass from me. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The page itself is misleading by its name. There is no mention of neutral sources like local newspapers, UNHRC or any representative report of other countries. The page should be renamed as Kashmir Uprising and content included from those hundreds of neutral sources out there and can anyone explain how can be a 19 month old child as a rioter?  MehrajMir (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Mehrajmir13: in that case, I'm going to recuse myself from this DYK, and ask for another reviewer: --DannyS712 (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 I note that you are having an ongoing content dispute with me at [1] another article and you have followed me here. Per WP:BATTLE you should not really be using these DYK nominations as battle grounds to attack editors you are having content disputes with. The language used in your comment clearly shows that you are at an impasse.
  • There is nothing misleading about the article title, it has a specific scope and the article covers its scope quite well.
  • Your suggestion to rename this as "Kashmir Uprising" is entirely frivolous because that article on that topic already exists at 2016–17 Kashmir unrest.
  • After your comment I have included the UNCHR report from a local Kashmiri newspaper. I note that the article already includes criticism from notable organisations such as Amnesty International. DBigXrayᗙ 22:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Mehrajmir13, that is unfortunately not a productive comment. You very well know that Crowd control in Kashmir and Kashmir uprising can never be the same article. If you would like an article on the latter, you are free to create one. As far as this article is concerned, if you are able to make any suggestions for improvements, either before or after DYK, I am sure DBigXray will take them on board and I will be happy to help to the extent I can. The current sources include the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC and Reuters. They are from "third countries" as far as I am aware. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that the renaming that is suggested in the link above will occur and I have commented the same on the talk page WP:BOLD. The other points raised related to the sources cited can be addressed accordingly, and do not have anything to with this DYK as far as I can tell now since Winged Blades doubts have also been addressed as far as I can tell since there in no reply from his side here above. I request this DYK to continue for now unless no one has any other page rename suggestions, and inclusion of sources which haven't been used, can carry on. Again I repeat, as far as the DYK issue is concerned, I think it can proceed as normal. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be "WP:BOLD" to reply on talk page. Fact that you are completely misunderstanding the concerns and throwing a bunch of personal attacks as per your talk page comments,[2] it only means that that the issue has not resolved. A simple concern, that you are still not understanding, is that this is not a normal crowd but protesters, and this issue doesn't concerns entire Jammu and Kashmir but only Kashmir Valley. The problem is not just with the title but article itself.  MehrajMir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mehrajmir13 you are acting naive now. Crowd control is the standard phrase used internationally, if you arent aware of the standard terms then knowledge is just a quick google search away, ("crowd control"+"kashmir") which turns up a large number of reliable sources that are using this term.
  • DiplomatTesterMan (You do not have to respond to Mehrajmir) let's wait for a neutral DYK reviewer to come along and review this, as I already noted above, Mehrajmir13 has followed my contributions to reach this DYK and to continue his content dispute with me. The points he has raised are clearly frivolous WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of stalling tactics. DBigXrayᗙ 16:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I watched this DYK since it is concerns one of the area where I frequently contribute and I am a long term contributor to DYKs in general, having nearly 3 times more edits to DYK space than you.
  • You should refrain from any more personal attacks now. Your "standard terms" show nothing compared to what we see after searching "protestors"+"kashmir"+"pellet" on Google. Indeed, reliable sources like Amnesty, BBC[3][4], DNA India, The Hindu and many others make no mention of "crowd" but talk about "protestors".  MehrajMir (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Congratulations to you, that you have 3 times more edits than me on DYK, unfortunately I am not interested in comparing dick sizes or DYK edit counts. You have already confessed above that you are going through my contribution, which is how you found that you have "three times more edits on DYK than me". I would advise you not to follow my contribution history anymore. On the next instance of your hounding I will seek admin actions to prevent this.
  • The comments by Mehrajmir13 (who seems to be here only to stall the DYK and get rid of the article) have already been replied to both here and on the talk page. WBG has also warned him against this behavior [5]. The consensus on the talk page is to continue with the current title and article, there is absolutely no consensus for any kind of merge or rename. DBigXrayᗙ 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I note here, that I will wait for comments from a new DYK reviewer, so that this DYK page does not become another WP:BATTLEGROUND.DBigXrayᗙ 11:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • New reviewer needed, as noted above. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Simple requests: who, what, where and why? I made a few edits but have already been reverted: one to explain that the region belongs to India, and to explain who is using these weapons. I am not interested in an edit war, only in resolving this nomination. I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period.
  • Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?
  • Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • SusanLesch, my aim was also not to start an edit war. I reverted my own edit of your edit. The lead is again as you had put it. Thank you for these points. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SusanLesch, For your point - "I understand that the 2016–17 Kashmir unrest is WP:TOOBIG otherwise this clearly belongs there because every date cited is from that period." This article clearly has SOPs and laws and incidents and equipment which are prior to 2016 -17. There are plently more incidents which can be added prior to 2016. Hence the shift to 2016–17 Kashmir unrest isn't needed apart from the reason of WP:TOOBIG also. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @SusanLesch:, You have written - "Can the hook please say that Indian security forces are using these weapons?" It already says that. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Can the background section or lead please summarize why conflict is necessary?" I have added two lines to the background section accordingly. I also mentioned security forces in the lead again. I think all your points should be covered with these answer? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: SusanLesch, You had written "I am not interested in an edit war". This is exactly how edit wars start. I will let others see how to handle this since this is taking too much energy and I don't have the energy to explain why so many points you have written above are nonsensical in my opinion stemming from not being able to understand what this article is about and seeming to not understand that other Wikipedia articles already cover your points which you want to add here. I am nominating this for article for AFD since if it can't pass a simple DYK then I don't think it should even be an article. Regards. Happy editing. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • AFD link - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @DBX and DTm:- This's getting more and more farcical with the passage of time. This article (though on a notable topic) will need a huge lot of work to be NPOV-free (and be DYK suitable) and rebut concerns of Cforking. Please withdraw this nom. ∯WBGconverse 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    SusanLesch thanks a lot for giving a detailed review along with your concerns. IMHO this is much more helpful than some of the other comments that were made above. DTM is on vacation and I will take time to fix the issues that you pointed. Thanks for your patience. DBigXrayᗙ
Thank you, DBigXray. Something tells me there's a chance this could work out. P.S. Maybe you can edit down the section I added about the UN report. It sticks out like a sore thumb, maybe that's allright. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with WBG that you ought to withdraw your nomination unless one of you is going to fix this article now. Four days have passed since the second rejection, yet the original authors have made zero contributions. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. reviewing material and sources. DBigXrayᗙ 06:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working After a much needed break from this article, I am now able to shift to this article again and will take up each point raised one by one, as calmly as possible with the patience this one requires. This is a difficult article and will be given due consideration accordingly, as I had been giving accordingly when I first created it. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have started a new section on the talk page of the article (Talk:Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Points_raised_in_the_DYK) that will deal with all the points raised by SusanLesch one by one. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

, ALT3 is ready to go. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm concerned that some of the phrasing in this article is too close to that of its sources. Compare for example "the plastic of the soft-nosed shells easily melts and releases a gas that disperses the crowd. These soft-nosed shells cannot cause fatal injuries. According to CRPF officers, another point is that there have been advancements in tear smoke munitions allowing them to be used more prominently as compared to the other crowd-control weapons" with "The plastic of the soft-nosed shells melts very easily, releasing a gas that helps disperse the crowds. So the shells cannot be fatal in themselves. Secondly, we have made advancements in tear smoke munitions (TSM) that can be used more prominently than other crowd-control weapons". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Working to fix the concerns raised above. DBigXrayᗙ 05:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing appears to be reasonable now. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, Thanks a lot for your kind review and response. Can you please mark this DYK with subst:DYKtick, so that it can proceed. DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll let someone else respond to the re-review you've requested, as I haven't checked other areas of DYK compliance. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

article should be reviewed again. As noted above, the issues have been fixed. DBigXrayᗙ 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • SusanLesch has already done an extensive review of this article and DYK as evident from the talk page after that Nikkimaria has also reviewed and commented about an issue that has already been fixed. Not sure what is making this DYK wait for an eternity. DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This article was new enough when nominated and is long enough. The article seems sufficiently neutral and has been stable for the last two months. I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues and no QPQ is needed. With regard to the hook, I couldn't find the hook facts for ALT3 in the article. The relevant section mentions "The first weapon used to disperse the crowds, be it near an encounter site or anywhere else, is the tear smoke munitions. The next in the list are chili bombs, followed by pump action guns". If you incorporate that infprmation into a new hook I should be able to approve it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done, Cwmhiraeth appreciate your kind comments and the review. The line in the section SOPs that you are referring to happened before the events of ALT3. The Article lead already included the content related to ALT3, and I have now included it to its relevant section at Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#Replacements. Since ALT3 is a more recent and relevant event, I feel it is more apt here, rather than making another ALT4 with outdated info. Please check if this DYK can proceed. Any further suggestions for improvement are also welcome. regards. DBigXrayᗙ 11:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Good to go with ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I find the article hard to follow because it is not adhering to chronological order. The lead starts with something that happened in 2017 and then goes back to 2016. Years are mixed up throughout the article. It is unclear to me why the hook fact only appears in the lead; it seems an important enough development to include in the main text as well. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I have done my bit in trying to move this long-stalled nomination forward. What DYK rule requires the alterations to the article that you are requesting? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: Thanks for your kind review. In addition to what Cwm stated above, I would also point out that the DYK Fact is currently at two places in the article, once in the lead as well as in the article body as this edit shows. I also changed the lead and the article to make it more chronological. diff, diff DBigXrayᗙ 06:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: How about readability? I just looked at the lead again and it does not flow in a logical sequence. @DBigXray: It does not make sense to use the term "pellet gun", which in common parlance is an air gun, if you are talking about something that causes much more damage. I suggest you write "riot shotguns" or "pellet-firing riot shotguns" throughout. Yoninah (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah:, thanks for the suggestion and your efforts. The concern regarding shotgun/airgun has already been discussed on the talk page where the consensus is to use what the reliable sources and media are using to refer it. Anyway, this has been clarified with appropriate wikilinks and texts in the first line of the lead as well. Regarding the chronology. I have made further copy edits to the lead. Please see if this is acceptable now. regards.DBigXrayᗙ 06:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your further editing, DBigXray. I see you have been patiently shepherding this article for quite a few months. I gave it a full read-through and everything looks good. Restoring tick for ALT3 per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Crowd_control_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir&oldid=1019929109"