User talk:Fowler&fowler

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arslan-San (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 14 January 2019 (→‎Your opinion on tagging some Kashmir articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your opinion on tagging some Kashmir articles

Could you please take a look at

Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948
and quite a few others. The content in these articles are both structurally and textually biased. Much of the sources used in these articles are either low quality or undue. And a lot of the content is written with a methodology of plucking out one thing from 1 source then synthesising it with something else from a different source. Being familiar with the historiography, different perspectives and academic canon of this subject, I have concluded that these articles don't represent the scholarship on Kashmir at all.

Before attaching POV and SYNTHESIS templates onto these articles I thought I should consult with you because you are our most knowledgeable editor on both the sources and the topic. Would you take some time out to review this issue? If you come to the same conclusion as me that these articles are suffering from pov and synthesis issues then I will add the templates. Code16 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did read your post, but then forgot to reply. I'll take a look at the pages you mention and get back to you in the next 24 hours. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I will wait :)′Code16 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Code16, I was just reading a survey of Kashmir's historiography. (Vernon Hewitt, "Never Ending Stories: Recent Trends in the Historiography of Jammu and Kashmir," History Compass, 2007, Vol. 5 Issue 2, pp. 288–301)
It does seem to me from reading 1947 Poonch rebellion and comparing it with the survey's listing of the various views, pertaining to each stage of Kashmiri history, that the 1947 Poonch rebellion is shrewdly written to side with the Indian POV.
Not only is there no
WP:BALANCE
but the bibliography reveals the heavy use of Indian government sources, primary sources and articles with low cites.
Hewitt's survey dismisses the "I was there" kind of memoirs/biographies, which these article's sources are just often repeating.
These Kashmir articles need to be based entirely on the main and prominent works of Kashmiri history, so it doesn't go beyond whats widely accepted. ~~ User:Arslan-San (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on the "Pro-India POV" To be fair there are good quality sources in the bibliography like Victoria Schofield and Christopher Snedden, but are cited for subsidiary things. The main narrative is based off primary sources like Saraf, Suhrawardy, partisan sources such as Jha (see Taylor and Wirsing reviews) and low level journal articles by Ankit.Code16 (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*@Code16 and Fowler&fowler: Indian authors are typically hesitant to accept that the revolt was indigenous.[1] Overall the current tone of 1947 Poonch rebellion is also to de-emphasise the indigenous roots and nature of the rebellion. I can't give an exhaustive explanation but I can point out a few examples.

  • The standard Indian POV is that the Poonch rebellion was a "social unrest" stirred by Pakistani operatives.[2] This is reflected in the 4th paragraph of Politics of accession. Snedden's pivotal text on Sattis and the alleged Pakistani gangs is not represented. Particularly poignant was the fact that the sole evidence for the supposed Pakistani involvement was Henry Scott's report, which Snedden has already explained differently.[3]
  • The opinion of the Assistant British High Commissioner, H. S. Stephenson, that the Poonch unrest was "exaggerated" is quoted in August 1947. Its part of a small paragraph to play down the events in Poonch. Its sources are a low cite journal article and an Indian Government White Paper.
  • Again, while there's a section called "Pakistan's preparations", there's nothing about the important Indian lobbying of the Maharaja for accession in June-July which stirred the Muslim Conference into action in the first place.[5]
  • The lead of 1947 Poonch rebellion goes further and claims that Liaquat Ali Khan authorised an invasion. There's even a full section called "entry of Pakistan" to advertise this POV. Its based mainly off Raghavan, Jha and their ilk who are known to be New Delhi's apologists.[6] These apologists in turn depend on Akbar Khan's accounts. We know there is a cottage industry of "I was there" type memoirs which imply Pakistani involvement without actually proving it.[7]
    • Akbar Khan is known to be one such low-authority individual who wrote many of his personal ambitions into his memoirs. It is an Indian claim that his memoirs support the Indian national narrative.[8]
  • There is then a sub-section on 1947 Poonch rebellion devoted to the 12 September meeting. It is the basis for the lead's Indian POV that Liaquat Ali Khan authorised an invasion. But the pro-Indian POV's favourite man, Akbar Khan, is on record as saying about the talks with Liaquat "there was complete ignorance of anything in the nature of military operations."[9] Any account of the 12 September meeting should be based off Kashmir specialists who have covered the meeting, such as Alastair Lamb[10], and highlight the insignificant supply of weaponry barring the 4000 rifles originally intended for the Punjab police.[11]
  • The Operation Gulmarg is also further work in the same POV. Written with low quality sources and unacceptable sources (such as Prasad, Joshi, Kalkat and Palit) it advertises the Indian military POV that a plan called Operation Gulmarg existed. The only quality source in that section, Robin James Moore, actually concludes that the Pakistani government did not organise the invasion of Kashmir.[12]
    • Even then, Moore's text on the non-state cross border raids on Kashmir has been synthesized to somehow support the Indian POV that Operation Gulmarg existed.
    • The cross border raids of September itself needs a balanced coverage, preferably represented the way Sumantra Bose[13] or Victoria Schofield have covered them. After all, if state government and Muslim Conference sources can be "balanced" under August 1947, why not the coverage of the raids too, per Bose & Schofield?
  • The caricaturable Indian POV also ignores the popularity of Muslim Conference leaders had even in the Valley in 1947.[14] The claim that "The National Conference had almost total control in the Kashmir Valley" is a regurgitation of that POV.

I can go on and on about the pro-India bias of these articles, but this ought to be enough for now. ~~ User:Arslan-San (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 1850653518
    .
  2. ^ Vernon Hewitt (2007). "Never Ending Stories: Recent Trends in the Historiography of Jammu and Kashmir". History Compass. 5 (2): 290.
  3. ISBN 978-1-84904-150-8
    .
  4. ISBN 978-1-86064-898-4
    .
  5. ISBN 978-1-86064-898-4
    .
  6. ISBN 978-1-78168-259-3
    .
  7. ^ Vernon Hewitt (2007). "Never Ending Stories: Recent Trends in the Historiography of Jammu and Kashmir". History Compass. 5 (2): 290.
  8. ISBN 978-0-907129-07-3
    .
  9. ISBN 978-1-86064-898-4
    .
  10. ^ Lamb, Alastair (1991). Kashmir: a disputed legacy, 1846-1990. Roxford Books. p. 125.
  11. ISBN 978-0-907129-07-3
    .
  12. ^ James Moore, Robin (1987). Making the New Commonwealth. Oxford University Press. p. 52.
  13. ^ Bose, Sumantra (2003). Kashmir: Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace. Harvard University Press. p. 33-34.
  14. ^ Vernon Hewitt (2007). "Never Ending Stories: Recent Trends in the Historiography of Jammu and Kashmir". History Compass. 5 (2): 291.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fowler%26fowler&oldid=878361380"