Talk:Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 29 August 2023[edit]

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: Not moved. Per the discussion below there is a consensus to not move this article. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Insurgency in Jammu and KashmirInsurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir – Multiple issues related to clarity and POV.
Calling the area "Jammu and Kashmir," the name India has designated it, in wikivoice, gives undue weight to the Indian POV in a very controversial dispute. We do not call the Pakistani part of Kashmir "Free Kashmir" for the same reason.

Neutral sources refer to the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir as "Indian-administered Kashmir."[1]

The naming is extremely vague and confusing. "Jammu and Kashmir" can refer to multiple things - either the entire greater disputed region of Kashmir, or the name India gives to the part it controls.
But this is not where the confusion ends.
After 2019, when India dismembered Indian administered Kashmir, the entirety of which was known as state of Jammu and Kashmir, India created another much smaller territory with completely different boundaries called Jammu and Kashmir (Union territory).
Sources from before late 2019 calling it the "insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir" are referring to the territory of the state that spanned the entirety of Indian-administered Kashmir, not the new union territory with different boundaries. So, you can see how when one reads "Jammu and Kashmir" it can be vague and confusing even for those well informed about the region, let alone the average Wikipedia reader.

References

  1. ^ South Asia: fourth report of session 2006–07 by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee page 37

Solblaze (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Solblaze (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've added {{Reflist-talk}} to your request to prevent its references from showing up at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#References. – MaterialWorks 12:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Jammu and Kashmir is the name of the state, officially as well as in common parlance, just like Azad Kashmir is the name of the province on the Pakistani side. We don't recognize any POV with official names. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the location linked in the article is not the state; it is the union territory. Solblaze (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a big deal , the newly formed Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir had always been the main hotspot for insurgent activities,not the Union territory now known as Ladakh. The splitting of Jammu and Kashmir into two parts can be clarified in the article Smahwk (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Until sources say this, you cannot link to the UT. The vast majority of sources refer to the state. Solblaze (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And most of the locations which are mentioned in the sources are now a part of the UT. Smahwk (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is WP:SYNTH. Until the majority of scholarly, neutral sources state the conflict is limited to the UT, you can't change the decades long consensus.
    Also, the vast majority of Indian-administered Kashmir's population is in the UT. Naturally, there will be more activity there. Solblaze (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is common sense . Most of the scholarly, neutral sources on the subject focus on locations which are now a part of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir , not Ladakh.Most of the research related to the conflict was published before the state was split into two;the Indian government doesn't even mention Ladakh anymore while talking about the insurgent activities.
    The ethnic composition of Ladakh is also very different from that of J&K Smahwk (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the scholarly, neutral sources on the subject focus on locations which are now a part of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
    <citation needed>
    Most of the research related to the conflict was published before the state was split into two;
    Precisely my point; this research refers to the entire state.
    The ethnic composition of Ladakh is also very different from that of J&K
    Yes, the few people who live in Ladakh may have a different ethnic composition (by the way, Kargil, capital of Ladakh, is Muslim majority and has protested its separation from J&K[1] and Leh has also protested the revocation of article 370[2]), but I don't see how that's relevant here. In a controversial topic like this, multiple high quality, neutral, scholarly sources are needed. Solblaze (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry, but there is near total academic consensus that the insurgency was largely limited to the Kashmir Valley, until the mid-1990s when it spread to some parts of Jammu. There have been no major incidents of violence (except this) in Ladakh nor any participation in the insurgency even by its Muslim residents. Even the US travel advisory to India considers Ladakh to be safe from "terrorism and civil unrest," unlike Jammu and Kashmir. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not arguing about the fact that the historical region of Ladakh is relatively peaceful - but you need RS explicitly referring to the modern Union Territory boundaries. Just like the first historical definition of "India" refers to a region almost entirely outside of the modern political entity "India's" borders. Solblaze (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ladakh has historically opposed being clubbed with Jammu and Kashmir and the people of Ladakh excluding Kargil initially celebrated the revocation of article 370.They have since organized protests demanding statehood as an independent Indian state, not as a part of Kashmir.[3][4]

Smahwk (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link vandalism is an entirely separate issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about Insurgency in Kashmir? That way it doesn't address governance. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because a part of Kashmir is controlled by Pakistan .There is no insurgency in Pakistan administered Kashmir , as of 2023 Smahwk (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see how that would make things confusing. I will strikethrough it. HenryMP02 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: We do refer to the part of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan as Azad Kashmir(Free Kashmir) in most of the articles where it is mentioned Smahwk (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kautilya3. Also oppose "Insurgency in Kashmir" as suggested by HenryMP02: "Kashmir" is more confusing and vague, not less. It refers to the region, the division and the valley. But agree that the title doesn't need to address governance—the current title already doesn't. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kargil is a capital of Ladakh, you can't sideline its importance - also, regardless of our opinions, the majority of RS, preferably history books, have to refer to the boundaries of the Union territory. It doesn't matter how India changes names or boundaries - tomorrow they could change Jammu and Kashmir's name to "The UT of Bihar" and it still wouldn't justify changing every reference in the article to the latter. Solblaze (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no insurgency in Kargil. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Must add new players in Kashmir insurgency like TRF[edit]

Must add new players in Kashmir insurgency like TRF Joseph786P (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2023[edit]

The 'Human Rights abuses section has been blatantly distorted to redundantly mention militant incidents. A single line mentions abuses by the army, followed by an awkward and poorly worded justification ("though many court cases have been done on this").

Typically 'human rights violations' are charged against the authorities, not the rebellion- this is a misuse of terminology. This section ought to be rewritten entirely. At the very least, the army abuses line should be edited and sources of documented rights abuses be referenced. 2A02:1210:5402:8000:D8B4:EFF0:D8C8:2F12 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]