Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rape in Jammu and Kashmir

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OccultZone (talk | contribs) at 01:18, 14 June 2014 (→Proposed merge with Rape in India: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:18, 14 June 2014 by OccultZone (talk | contribs) (→Proposed merge with Rape in India: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconIndia Redirect‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Tags

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

Could this not be merged into Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir? Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
See my comments on that article talk. This is a spin off. It should contain a small summary there with main article link to this. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Who cares? This article is fubar now. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
There's no that much content to work with on this page, so I think it can easily be moved to Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir, unlike Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War... which DarknessShines has just brought up some good points. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 00:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This article was just started. I think it can grow into an article as good. Unlike Bangladesh war, this is a current issue and is likely to develop further continuously in addition to the same reasons for keeping that article. If at a later point it is evident that there isn't enough material for this article to be a stand alone and that it wont make that article too long, we can probably merge it. But at the moment, I think its growing at a high rate. Is that reasonable? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok. We'll give it sometime since it was just started and it's concerning recent events. Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Recent events my ass, it's been ongoing for twenty years. This is were I had gotten to in the last couple of days. I have of course removed all that content now. Like i said, this could have been an excellent article, now it is a stick to beat India with. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Good enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

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

America

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

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

Is semi- or pending-changes warranted?

Resolved

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

Three ways to handle this are:

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted section (Rape by militants section)

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

Of course it can be removed. It was added by a sockpuppet. It also violates NPOV in the way it was written, and the article already mentions attacks by terrorists/militant groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have looked at the article history and in the first edit you say this article was created by a sockpuppet. So by this rationale the whole article should be deleted. But if the content is valid then it can be added.
But NPOV is a valid argument. I leave it to others to decide about this. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The article was created by a sock, he was around yesterday in fact, left me a pleasant message on my talk page. It was deleted then I recreated it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Rape in India

Redundant article, parent article is only at 29,735 bytes. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've to agree with this proposal. Rape in Jammu and Kashmir has been uselessly expanded. I don't see any reliable statistics, or frequency or causes and factors on that article. It should be merged into this article. OccultZone (Talk) 14:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Why can't it? The page already has a separate section for J&K and two subsections of Indian armed forces and Militant groups. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
J&K has special status and its own constitution, so it'll be better to have a separate article on it. -- - sms- talk    13:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha! Constitution of India is not applicable to WP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose obviously. The subject is notable in its own right and has recieved ubiquitous coverage, especially in the context of the Kashmir conflict. There are more than enough references from various authoritative sources that discuss this topic in detail. An article for the subject is very important. I do not see a strong pretext or case presented forward as too why this needs a merger into Rape in India. Besides, if and when this topic is further expanded, it will need a breakaway article anyway as too much Kashmir-specific content on Rape in India will undermine that article's scope. Getting this article merged would be a redundant and useless exercise. Mar4d (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Observation on close This was de facto closed by the proposer by his recent edit turning this into a redirect. Given the close-ness of the debate ("4 to 2" is only 2 people short of a "tie !vote" - but this is not a headcount) and the merit of the arguments on both sides, I would have preferred a non-involved editor close this. If I were closing it, I would close it as weak consensus to merge, with a caution that the merge effort may be "for naught" if and when the content in the target article grows to the point that a split is desired or required, and a caution that "consensus can change."
I also have a minor quibble with not letting this discussion go at least 30 days. It's a "minor" quibble because there has been no discussion in over a week and no reason to think extending it to the full month would provide any benefit.
Also, the merge is NOT done yet, only the redirect has been created. Editors should merge the contents then discuss whether or not a split is required. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
In how many other states of the world the army has allegedly carried out rape? Article is an undue weight and lacks accuracy. There is nothing appreciable about it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Categories: