Talk:Rape during the Kashmir conflict/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please notice the discretionary sanctions on this article
@Dilpa kaur: Please do not make so many large edits to this article so fast, as per the discretionary sanctions on this article.
Let me also just double check the sanctions to check whether they are still in place.
@Vanamonde93: Are the sanctions still applicable to this page?
I have not been able to double check if the edits made by Dilpa kaur are good edits as yet, which I will be doing. I just wanted to verify the sanctions aspect first and if it is important for users to follow the one edit rule. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2016 for the edit restrictions for all Kashmir conflict-related articles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- No dear. The discretionary sanctions do not prohibit multiple large edits, they prohibit multiple reverts. Even that does not apply when one is pruning away copious quantities of copyright infringements. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Dilpa kaur: The discretionary sanctions prohibit misrepresenting sources, and they also prohibit treating Wikipedia as a battleground. You are free to remove copyright violations from the text of the article, so long as you do not misrepresent the source in doing so: in edits such as this one, you are distorting what the source says. Furthermore, the guideline you are quoting relate to the use of quotations in the text, not within citations. The use of such quotations is not forbidden, and what constitutes excessive use is not completely clear cut. I would encourage you to discuss this here first, and if no consensus is reached, take the issue to the copyvio noticeboard. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- No dear. The discretionary sanctions do not prohibit multiple large edits, they prohibit multiple reverts. Even that does not apply when one is pruning away copious quantities of copyright infringements. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are right Vanamonde93 that source misrepresentation and battleground behaviour is prohibited. But I am unsure why you think the latter is even a relevant issue here. We are debating, not fighting. As for your claim "so long as you do not misrepresent the source in doing so: in edits such as this one" you need to back that claim up by pinpointing to a sentence which did not remain faithful to its source after my copyedit. I will make a table later comparing each of my copyedited sentences with each corresponding source text to examine your claim. If we still can not solve our dispute here we will have to solve our dispute at WP:DRN. Dilpa kaur (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, that's easily done; don't bother with the tables. You replaced "intimidation" in the original with "subjugation"; the two words are not equivalent. You replaced "rape in Kashmir was a systematic attempt to humiliate the local population" with "rape is conducted systematically during counter-offensives against militants to shame local Kashmiri communities." Again, similar, but not identical in meaning. This was just in one edit, and does not even go into the grammatical problems you have introduced ("the motivations causing rape", for instance, is ungrammatical). Also, plastering a copyright violation template on the talk page of a user you know to be aware of copyright is evidence of a battleground attitude. So, I'm uninterested in going to DRN. Please take Dianaa's advice, and discuss any further issues with quotations here on the talk page. If you find copyright violations in the text, you should either remove the text completely, or rewrite it thoroughly. This approach of trying to switch individual words to ones similar in meaning simply does not work. Vanamonde (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is a bit better. I have copyedited 2 sentences you are right about. However, your statement that "This was just in one edit" is not useful. You have to give clear examples rather than leaving ambiguous statements. You are also incorrect on my copyedit of the Amnesty International statement. The original source text goes like this "rape is practised as part of a systematic attempt to humiliate and intimidate the local population during counter-insurgency operations." It is obvious that the former text ("rape in Kashmir was a systematic attempt to humiliate the local population") was too close a paraphrase of the original text. It is also quite obvious that my copyedit ("rape is conducted systematically during counter-offensives against militants to shame local Kashmiri communities") is identical in meaning to the source text. If you still disagree with such an obvious fact this then going to WP:DRN will become a good faith pathway to solve your dispute with me. I will add the comparative table there. Dilpa kaur (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- "systematic attempt to humiliate" is not the same as "rape is conducted systematically". If you're unable to understand that, you shouldn't be editing such a contentious topic. More importantly, you are dodging the main point I made. Dianaa explicitly told you that the quotations in citations were not a problem. You have refused to acknowledge this, and have done nothing about restoring the quotations, which greatly aid verifiability. Please do so now. Vanamonde (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is no difference in the meaning of those two texts if you actually read their original sentences in full without narrowing down to 4 words. Nevertheless, I have copyedited that sentence for you.
- While Diannaa did say that attributed quotes are okay, she also cautioned that excessive quotes violate WP:NFCC.[1] I have reinstated a trimmed version of those quotes. I won't be restoring large (excessive) paragraphs.Dilpa kaur (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- There is no difference in the meaning of those two texts if you actually read their original sentences in full without narrowing down to 4 words. Nevertheless, I have copyedited that sentence for you.
- "systematic attempt to humiliate" is not the same as "rape is conducted systematically". If you're unable to understand that, you shouldn't be editing such a contentious topic. More importantly, you are dodging the main point I made. Dianaa explicitly told you that the quotations in citations were not a problem. You have refused to acknowledge this, and have done nothing about restoring the quotations, which greatly aid verifiability. Please do so now. Vanamonde (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- That is a bit better. I have copyedited 2 sentences you are right about. However, your statement that "This was just in one edit" is not useful. You have to give clear examples rather than leaving ambiguous statements. You are also incorrect on my copyedit of the Amnesty International statement. The original source text goes like this "rape is practised as part of a systematic attempt to humiliate and intimidate the local population during counter-insurgency operations." It is obvious that the former text ("rape in Kashmir was a systematic attempt to humiliate the local population") was too close a paraphrase of the original text. It is also quite obvious that my copyedit ("rape is conducted systematically during counter-offensives against militants to shame local Kashmiri communities") is identical in meaning to the source text. If you still disagree with such an obvious fact this then going to WP:DRN will become a good faith pathway to solve your dispute with me. I will add the comparative table there. Dilpa kaur (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, that's easily done; don't bother with the tables. You replaced "intimidation" in the original with "subjugation"; the two words are not equivalent. You replaced "rape in Kashmir was a systematic attempt to humiliate the local population" with "rape is conducted systematically during counter-offensives against militants to shame local Kashmiri communities." Again, similar, but not identical in meaning. This was just in one edit, and does not even go into the grammatical problems you have introduced ("the motivations causing rape", for instance, is ungrammatical). Also, plastering a copyright violation template on the talk page of a user you know to be aware of copyright is evidence of a battleground attitude. So, I'm uninterested in going to DRN. Please take Dianaa's advice, and discuss any further issues with quotations here on the talk page. If you find copyright violations in the text, you should either remove the text completely, or rewrite it thoroughly. This approach of trying to switch individual words to ones similar in meaning simply does not work. Vanamonde (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- You are right Vanamonde93 that source misrepresentation and battleground behaviour is prohibited. But I am unsure why you think the latter is even a relevant issue here. We are debating, not fighting. As for your claim "so long as you do not misrepresent the source in doing so: in edits such as this one" you need to back that claim up by pinpointing to a sentence which did not remain faithful to its source after my copyedit. I will make a table later comparing each of my copyedited sentences with each corresponding source text to examine your claim. If we still can not solve our dispute here we will have to solve our dispute at WP:DRN. Dilpa kaur (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Problematic editing on history
@NadirAli: [2] [3] - I'm afraid that by edit-warring, you have violated the 1 RR restriction which is enforced on this page. You are well aware about the Arb Com Discretionary Sanctions situation related to IPA articles, and you also have been notified about the same. I sincerely suggest you to self-revert, or else you can be reported.
Regarding your edit, when the source uses the word "molest", what is your justification in interpreting as "mass rape" and writing it so in the article? Please see the OED meanings of the words 'molestation' and 'rape'. I don't know what the heck you mean, when say there is some "Wikipedia consensus" which says molest = rape! First of all, you need to provide evidence for that. You have to keep in mind that this page is not on Sexual violence during Kashmir conflict, its particularly on Rape. Your addition doesn't fit this article. — Tyler Durden (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've already had blocked NadirAli for 1RR violation. El_C 07:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Scratched, I wasn't aware of that. Just noticed it on his talk page, thanks for informing. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- I have reverted this because source only talks about "looting and molesting", and since author mentions Maharaja number of times it seems that author is talking about something that we have already detailed (dogra troops, hindu, sikh mobs). Capitals00 (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
- Scratched, I wasn't aware of that. Just noticed it on his talk page, thanks for informing. --- Tyler Durden (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This is false statement during the partion there are no proof that specifically indian army is accused. Writing anything without any proof and just by reading on wikipedia is nonsense. Shubham08642 (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Follow-up from the above section
@Dilpa kaur: Sasri kaal Ji! Please do make the table you were talking about above. Maybe you could try to make it in this way. (Since the table is hard to make on the talk page due to the lack of visual editor, I also made one in my userspace, located at User:DiplomatTesterMan/Rape during the Kashmir Conflict, which you are welcome to fill in.) (Also since I am not sure whether this kind of discussion can go on this talk page or not, hence in userspace if need be.)
| Sr No | Edit Date and Time | Edit Summary | Changes made to text | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous | After | ||||
| 1 | 04:38, 28 December 2018 | (copyediting closely pararphrasd text and removing excessive quotations per WP:COPYVIO) | |||
| 2 | 04:39, 28 December 2018 | (→Background: copyediting close paraphrases and removing excessive quotations per WP:COPYVIO) | |||
| 3 | 04:41, 28 December 2018 | (→Rape as a weapon of war: copyediting close paraphrases and removing excessive quotations per WP:COPYVIO) | |||
| 4 | 04:43, 28 December 2018 | (→Extent: ditto, removing large quantities of copyrighted material (quotes) and copediting any closely paraphrased texts) | |||
| 5 | 04:46, 28 December 2018 | (→Aftermath: copyediting close paraphrases and removing excessive quotations per WP:COPYVIO) | |||
| 6 | 04:50, 28 December 2018 | (ditto, copyediting closely paraphrased texts and removing excessive quotations per WP:COPYVIO) | |||
Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you DTM but the table I am working on in my folder is structured differently. It has a column for the original source's text, another column for the old article text and the third column is for my copyedit. Each row contains an individual sentence to compare between the three.
- The above table which goes by each edit doesn't leave room to compare each sentence individually and besides won't be of much help because in each edit of mine most of the bytes were actually removal of large white gaps inside the ref templates. I made the reference templates more compact.Dilpa kaur (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dilpa kaur: Umm ok. So we don't get to see your table? :( DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Dilpa kaur: re-ping, some problem with the last one. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
== Rape by militants (post-1988) ==
After reading the content and the sources thereof, I wonder how is this section standing. This whole section looks blatant POV, OR and irrelevant. I couldn't find incidents like in its following section with sources, if anyone can he/she is welcome. MehrajMir (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- The whole article was manipulated due to possible vandalism. I reverted those edits now. MehrajMir (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2021
 | This edit request to Rape during the Kashmir conflict has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alleged rape 188.66.225.55 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2019
| This edit request to Rape during the Katua Mohammed has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan Murdabad PAPAPakistanKa123 (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
- 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. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)