Template talk:Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

	India portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
	This template is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir.

Human rights

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles

Links

I would say that more than half the links in this template are not to article son human rights abuses, any reasons for not removing them? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tell me which articles you're referring?--Benfold (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathua Rape Case

@DiplomatTesterMan: There have been 595 rape cases in Jammu and Kashmir in last 2 years. [1][2]. So does that mean we will add every rape case??. It's better to keep this tempelate limited to major terror attacks rather than list of rapes, Rape is never ending case, we can't add every second rape case here. My Lord (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My Lord: Your reasoning doesn't make sense. Not every terror attack is listed here. There are so many terror attacks in Kashmir, not all of them are covered on wiki since they arent notable enough and wiki isnt news. Not every rape case has a wiki page. The name of the template should change by your logic. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could involve more experienced wikipedia editors to this discussion if you want to get a third party opinion.DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My Lord: Please also note that rape and murder cases are already mentioned here... Kunan is there and the Shopian one too...DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: I didn't say every Terror attack, I said Major Terror attacks should be listed here and as far as rapes are concerned those rape incidents should be mentioned here which are either done by securiy forces or Terrorists. Mentioning of regular rape cases makes no sense as I already said there have been 595 regular rape incidents in J&K in last 2 years and as far as Kunan and Shopain are concerned both are done by security forces. So it should be added here. My Lord (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it needs to be included because it is highly notable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Notability is not an issue, the issue is whether to include cases which doesn't include Security forces or terrorists. My Lord (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I agree with @My Lord: here. This template, as it currently exists, largely reflects the human rights abuses by state forces and the militants in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. While the Kathua Rape Case does meet WP:GNG (and thus has it's own page), none of these actors had any role to play in the event. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamgerber80: @My Lord: Don't the JK police come under security forces? The accused in the Kathua case also include police... DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: yes you are correct in stating that but a crime by regular police is just another crime and should be treated as so. I will reiterate what I tried to say, maybe with better wording. Almost all the entries in this template have a role played by a given set of actors within the umbrella of the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir. I do not see any connection of this particular event to the insurgency. By adding this to the template, you are diluting the purpose of this template. I am happy to take this to a discussion board and have a fresh set of eyes look at it and decide if this indeed belongs here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: As @Adamgerber80: said it is not the part of curent insurgency. My Lord (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I sort of understand where this conversation is going and the point @Adamgerber80: @My Lord: are raising after briefly going through what is in this template. I request all of us involved in this conversation @Kautilya3: and anyone else of course, to come to a consensus about what this template is about... Why don't we briefly mention this on the template page for future editors... something like -

Usage: The following template includes human rights incidents in Jammu and Kashmir between the following parties - Indian security forces, militants and civilians. The template should not include other acts of rape or murder in Jammu and Kashmir, no matter how notable, if not related to militancy or insurgency.

Any comments? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of what to call something a "Human rights violation" is a bit confused right now. Until recently, only the actions of states were called human rights violations. That is because the states are supposed to be human rights providers, and what they do cannot called "crimes". But, when people started complaining, the human rights organisations started including militant groups too, without a clear understanding of what they are doing and why. It makes sense in the areas where the militant groups are in control, acting as if they are mini-states of their own, inviting descriptions such as "non-state actors" (which is not a term of any greater clarity).

The Kathua rape case has, to me at least, the sense of a "human rights violation" because the dominant group of the area (the Hindus) seemed to have been united in backing the perpetrators. But it is not easy to make a case. I think we should list it here only if some human rights organisation lists it as a human rights violation, not otherwise. I don't buy the argument that what we list here should have anything to do with the "insurgency". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I disagree with your assessment here. If you read the Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir page which is linked off the template and seems to be the page this template is based on, there is a clear presentation of insurgency umbrella. Almost the entire page touches on some aspect of human right violation which has occurred under the insurgency. You are correct in stating that Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir is a generic topic and thus in a different siuation your statement would be fine. But, as of now, the content in this template the way it has been linked is all about the insurgency. Maybe, we should rename this template to something more appropriate.

@DiplomatTesterMan: IMO, we should either rename the template, or add the small description you have, to clearly explain what this template is about. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Adding the description is a good choice as this limits the edits to relevant one's and reated to insurgency. My Lord (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related to "Amarnath land transfer controversy"

Should this be included in this template? - Amarnath land transfer controversy - for 2008? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During a brief overview, I would say no. But I would wait for other editors to weigh in. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

terror attacks against security forces should not be included

Hello. I would like to chime in and ask why have been terror attacks against armed security forces included in this template when the template is only for reporting human rights abuses against civilians? isn't that the case with every other entry besides the latest two? is the person responsible for adding these two entries implying that the terrorist attacks against armed forces should have the same weight as massacres and rapes of civilians? Mhveinvp (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am removing attacks on military forces. Re12345 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are "human rights", not "civilian rights". I don't know where you got the idea that attacks on security forces are not considered human rights abuses. If they were attacked in "combat", then that is a different issue. But if the members of the forces are attacked at homes, along with families, or during travel, they do constitute human rights. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was similarly confused when I saw Pulwama on the template. Solblaze (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of human rights abuses

It must be noted that attacks against the state are not counted as "human rights abuses". By definition, human rights are rights that are claimed only from the state (e.g., right to education, right to due process, right to family life, etc.). Only states are bound by human rights treaties they signed, and consequently only states can be held in breach of human rights.

We have two options:

Remove all entries that do not refer to human rights abuses (i.e., those carried out by the state), or
Rename the template.

Which option would you prefer? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to remove entries which don't refer to human rights abuses. There's no need to repurpose an entire template for the sake of a fringe and arguably biased viewpoint, that too on a contentious topic. Solblaze (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]