![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Uri attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Multiple users have been edit-warring. I do not have any desire to engage in an edit war and as no one here seems interested to start any discussion, I'll start it. A lot of people keep calling the militants as "terrorists". The media often uses the word "terrorists" but we can't use it to describe them per WP:TERRORIST. Neither we can call them Kashmiri rebels as it suggests positive bias. In addition, the attack can't be called "Islamic terrorism" as the neither any of the sources call it so, nor are the attacks in Kashmir even by Islamists are carried out over Islamist motives exclusively. The purpose behind insurgency in Kashmir is secession of Kashmir from India which you can see in Kashmir conflict and insurgency articles, Islamist groups are major part if the insurgency. Not every attack by Islamists always falls under Islamic terrorism especially when the main reason behind the attack is something else. If anyone has any issues, please discuss. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Geopolitixx, when I said independent of Kashmir I meant annexation by Pakistan also, not just Kashmir becoming a separate country. I was generalising both the independence of Kashmir as well as annexation by Pakistan. Ofcourse it isn't accurate but regardless you get what I tried to convey. The primary goal behind Kashmir insurgency is Kashmir's secession or breaking away from India. I hope I was accurate this time. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The NIA has just started investigating it. So we should wait instead of adding our own assumptions. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 11:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, Google News is indexing this page as news. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Pakistan has denied any hand in it. Since it is suspected behind the attack, I was wondering whether it should have a separate section since it is suspected to be behind it unlike other countries. Oe should it be under "Other countries"? DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 12:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to like the ideology (ostensibly conservative Islamism?) of the group in question to bring this fact up. It doesn't look like "terrorism" or "murder" to me; in the objective sense it's an operation by a paramilitary organization targeting the Indian army-- armed combatants targeting armed combatants in other words. 70.48.46.171 ( talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I included this as an example of Indian public reaction. It is notable, perhaps among many, because of the parties involved, a Muslim-dominated University, Kashmiri student etc. The way things are developing, we need to capture the mood in the country, rather than giving a long list of X had a meeting, Y said blah etc. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
1 student being expelled over a FB post is hardly noteworthy. You yourself told me that we shouldn't add everyone's reaction. One man's opinion ofcourse won't be necessarily the mood of significant number of people. I don't see any reason to add it. If however say multiple students were expelled, then it might be notable in real. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I see some contentious issues cropping up in the edits today. Here is my view on them.
Agree about not having theories in the lead which link the 2016 Kashmir unrest with the attack, as none of the cited sources establish a connection. If there's no further objection, I'll remove it. Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 23:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
[Copied from Talk:India-Pakistan relations -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The following restriction is placed on this article and all others in the India-Pakistan topic area, broadly construed, as a result of this arbitration enforcement request:
Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussions initiated by blocked sockpuppet
|
---|
In Other Nations Section, in United States Section, an entry bill entry has been mentioned which is not yet been accepted. Individual US Congressmen bill doesn't represent US policy. It is therefore requested to remove entries of bill and only Approved Publications shall be mentioned. Thanks Rugby9090 ( talk) 13:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Rugby9090 ( talk) 13:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Rugby9090 ( talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3 This matter is sent to WP:NPOVN [1]. Please avoid any further modifications till admins resolve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby9090 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Bharatiya29 you have recently added Armenia and Bahrain views on "2016 URI Attack" [2]. [3]. The reference you mentioned has no names, designation and date. Please provided valid references. In the mean time, revert the text to original WP:UNDUE WP:BIASED Rugby9090 ( talk) 16:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) References BangladeshSomeone please rewrite the inaccurate Bangladeshi reaction. Syed Muazzem Ali is indeed the current Bangladeshi high commissioner to India [2]. There has also been an official reaction from PM Sheikh Hasina [3].-- AzaanJC ( talk) 19:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC) User:AzaanJC As per current citation of Bangladesh Foreign Affairs Website, he is not working there. Please share any reliable citation if he is currently working for Bangladesh Government. Please also share any press release by PM Sheikh Hasina / Bangladesh Government as shared by other countries in their Foreign Affairs Website. Rugby9090 ( talk) 20:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC) The foreign ministry website refers to his tenure as foreign secretary [4]. Hope that clears the confusion.-- AzaanJC ( talk) 20:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Link shared by you contains Bangladesh Former Foreign Secretaries list. As per link shared, Mr. Syed Muazzem Ali tenure ended in July 2001. Please share valid citations from Bangladesh Government. Rugby9090 ( talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Rugby9090 ( talk) 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
|
I added Pakistani military reaction, but it was reverted. Why? VR talk 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Most reliable sources I read on the attack mention the Kashmir unrest, since the killing of Burhan Wani. Here's a few: BBC News, New York Times, The Telegraph, LA Times, Washington Post etc. We should also mention this.
In fact, Spartacus, the user who reverted me, later on added "At the time of the attack, Kashmir was at the centre of a civil unrest, during which 85 civilians had died in clashes with security forces." So its unclear what exactly Spartacus' point is. VR talk 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The attack in Kashmir appears opportunely timed as Islamabad faces international scorn and condemnation over its support of proxy groups in the region; the attack also provides Nawaz Sharif with political fodder to lay the blame at India’s feet for its mistreatment of Kashmiri citizens before the UN General Assembly next week.
as far as I know. If it is an RS, "opinions", i.e., analytical content, are reliable. That is not so for NEWSORG. You need to read WP:NEWSORG carefully and understand what it says. Newspaper op-eds are not RS (by virtue of publication in the newspaper) because their opinions are not subject to editorial review. News magazines, which purposely publish analysis, with editorial review, are RS. The Diplomat is in the latter category. NYT and BBC are not. We don't accept any news reporter in the world as an RS unless he/she publishes the content in a medium subject to editorial review. In fact, many newspaper editors publishe in The Diplomat precisely for that reason. See 2016 Kashmir unrest for examples.
References
Please be aware that this article is subject to the editing restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir Conflict listed here. In particular, maximum 1 revert, no aspersions, no reversions without discussion, and a civility restriction. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that there is analysis here ( 2016_Uri_attack#Analysis) by Indian media and military sources, shouldn't Pakistani analysis also be considered? Especially when it covered in major Indian newspapers? I added analysis by former General Pervez Musharraf, which was reported in both India Today and Pakistani sources, yet it was removed. (In fact, my edits were reverted without any discussion on the talk page) VR talk 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the opinions attributed to Gen. Musharraf precisely for the reasons stated in the edit summary. They are not reactions to the attack. Secondly, they are private opinions of an individual, however notable he might be, countering official positions issued by a government. They can only be countered by the other government. If Gen. Musharraf were to be an RS, having published in peer-reviewed sources, that would be another matter. But he is not. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Just my opinion: Musharraf doesn't hold any governmental post anymore. Even though he was a former President and General, his reactions aren't really noteworthy as he doesn't hold a government position. We cannot add everyone's reactions. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Musharraf could dance at parties and rarely enter a mosque but, at the same time, strongly defend jihad, the Taliban worldview, and the right for militants to cross into Indian Kashmir. After the coup, he stepped up support for Kashmiri militants and the Taliban to show that he was not soft on India. [1]
References
I've removed background as there's no RS sufficiently giving due weightage to the listed incident as background. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Diplomat noted that the timing of the attack coincided with the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly the following week.[30]
Background sections are pretty important, and found in most similar WP:good articles. See these articles for examples:
If you think the current background section is not well-written, please help improve it, instead of deleting it outright. VR talk 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya recently added stuff from a source that has nothing to do with the Uri attack. This source was published in 2013, so it couldn't have even known about the Uri attack. The only one linking this source to the Uri attack is Kautilya himself, with is WP:SYNTH. (Note, that I'm ok with this source, as it clearly talks about the Uri attack.) VR talk 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I am forming a Article / Section for "False Acquisitions by Indian Media" starting with URI Attack. List down at least 5 events / news that turned out to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.44.53 ( talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
|
This edit seems to have duplicated the following content:
On 25 September, The Indian Army said that two Pakistani nationals originally from Azad Kashmir were arrested by the Border Security Force in the Uri sector. They were said to have been recruited by Jaish-e-Mohammad two years ago for the purpose of acting as guides to infiltrating groups in the Uri sector. These guides themselves did not hae a role in the Uri attack. They were being questioned for gathering intelligence.
This is now both in the Analysis section and Aftermath section. Typically arrests, and other events, go in the Aftermath section that's why I had moved it there. Someone (myself, or someone else) should go ahead and remove one of the two copies of the duplicate material. VR talk 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This edit removed the number of civilian deaths in the lede, simply saying "civilians were having clashes". I think the number 85 civilian deaths (or whatever is most often used in RS) is warranted as it has been mentioned by several reliable sources as the context for the attack. I agree with keeping this short, and not giving it WP:UNDUE, but the number "85" hardly takes up space. VR talk 17:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The background section currently says "The protests have been described as the "largest anti-India protests" against Indian rule in recent years.[by whom?]"
Various sources say this: CBC News, MetroNews, CBS News. They are too many to list. Any suggestions as to how we can better word this? VR talk 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
[Link to revert]
Jaish-e-Mohammed has participated in multiple terror attacks in India and has provided crucial aid to al Qaeda.... Military facilities in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have been frequently targeted by jihadist groups based in the region... Despite the mountain of evidence against Jaish-e-Mohammed and its emir, Masood Azhar, for their role in numerous terrorist attacks, Pakistan refuses to crack down on the group and its leader.
do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.There is no conclusion implied in my text. A and B are still as they are. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this bit of WP:OR. The source doesn't say anything about "militant groups", much less in "Kashmir" whatever that means. Rather it suggests Pakistan as the source of the attackers. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Lihaas made about a dozen edits today, none of which I find have any merit.
I recommend that we don't do major copy-editing until the dust has settled. Making cosmetic changes is ok, but not like this. If you want to reorganise sections etc., please discuss it first, unless you are sure that they are non-controversial. For adding tags like "by whom" etc., please check the source first and think about whether attribution is needed. Wikipedians don't always agree on where it is needed. We definitely need attribution if something looks like a strong opinion, held by isolated people or agencies. We don't need it if it is widely reported. For everything in between, people differ. And, please don't tag-bomb. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Mar4d removed this reported cross-border raid, claiming it is an "obvious hoax". I am not confident that it is. The Quint is a respectable source, and it said that it double-checked it and it stands by it. Other media sources have acknowledged it and some have analysed it. [1] [2] We simply don't know whether it is true or not. If it did indeed happen, and both India and Pakistan decided to keep it quiet, I salute their good sense. I am afraid it needs to remain in the article as an unconfirmed minority viewpoint. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Madhumandal121: I don't understand the point of this edit. You moved the text ahead of the citation, making it imply that the wrong content is attributed to the wrong source. Can you explain what you are trying to do? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've modified the restrictions on the Kashmir conflict articles (see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016#India-Pakistan) because they are unworkable. There is no longer a 1RR restriction and neither do you need to explain every revert in the talk page (only if your revert is undone and you reinstate it). The other restrictions continue to apply. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a section in Military conflict regarding reaction of Hafiz Saeed on surgical strike which is clearly related to this topic so, I don't believe it should be removed. If anyone has personal issues with this please discuss here. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 08:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Mar4d rightly points out that the inclusion of Musharraf's statement has been contested, but conveniently fails to mention that he supported its inclusion. Is he trying to have it both ways?
It seems that Hafeez Seyed's statement is a reaction to the 2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So let it go there, rather than here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I request all experienced user from India or Pakistan don't be a part of Edit war and respect other users contribution, If you disagree with something please use talk page rather then reverting each other's edits and try to get WP:3O response. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 13:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made a very specific section on the alleged perpetrators ( 2016_Uri_attack#Perpetrators). I feel like that's all anyone cares about. So let's not dance around the issue and address it head on. VR talk 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems mere publicity of the new article. — TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 07:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.As the article already shows
Campaignbox India terrorism
, which lists
Jammu Terror Attack 2018, I dont find any need duplicate it again at the 'See Also'. It's simply against
WP:MOSLAYOUT, hence will remove it.—
TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡
ʞlɐʇ
09:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2016 Uri attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Multiple users have been edit-warring. I do not have any desire to engage in an edit war and as no one here seems interested to start any discussion, I'll start it. A lot of people keep calling the militants as "terrorists". The media often uses the word "terrorists" but we can't use it to describe them per WP:TERRORIST. Neither we can call them Kashmiri rebels as it suggests positive bias. In addition, the attack can't be called "Islamic terrorism" as the neither any of the sources call it so, nor are the attacks in Kashmir even by Islamists are carried out over Islamist motives exclusively. The purpose behind insurgency in Kashmir is secession of Kashmir from India which you can see in Kashmir conflict and insurgency articles, Islamist groups are major part if the insurgency. Not every attack by Islamists always falls under Islamic terrorism especially when the main reason behind the attack is something else. If anyone has any issues, please discuss. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Geopolitixx, when I said independent of Kashmir I meant annexation by Pakistan also, not just Kashmir becoming a separate country. I was generalising both the independence of Kashmir as well as annexation by Pakistan. Ofcourse it isn't accurate but regardless you get what I tried to convey. The primary goal behind Kashmir insurgency is Kashmir's secession or breaking away from India. I hope I was accurate this time. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The NIA has just started investigating it. So we should wait instead of adding our own assumptions. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 11:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly, Google News is indexing this page as news. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Pakistan has denied any hand in it. Since it is suspected behind the attack, I was wondering whether it should have a separate section since it is suspected to be behind it unlike other countries. Oe should it be under "Other countries"? DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 12:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to like the ideology (ostensibly conservative Islamism?) of the group in question to bring this fact up. It doesn't look like "terrorism" or "murder" to me; in the objective sense it's an operation by a paramilitary organization targeting the Indian army-- armed combatants targeting armed combatants in other words. 70.48.46.171 ( talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this revert, I included this as an example of Indian public reaction. It is notable, perhaps among many, because of the parties involved, a Muslim-dominated University, Kashmiri student etc. The way things are developing, we need to capture the mood in the country, rather than giving a long list of X had a meeting, Y said blah etc. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
1 student being expelled over a FB post is hardly noteworthy. You yourself told me that we shouldn't add everyone's reaction. One man's opinion ofcourse won't be necessarily the mood of significant number of people. I don't see any reason to add it. If however say multiple students were expelled, then it might be notable in real. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I see some contentious issues cropping up in the edits today. Here is my view on them.
Agree about not having theories in the lead which link the 2016 Kashmir unrest with the attack, as none of the cited sources establish a connection. If there's no further objection, I'll remove it. Aumnamahashiva ( talk) 23:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
[Copied from Talk:India-Pakistan relations -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The following restriction is placed on this article and all others in the India-Pakistan topic area, broadly construed, as a result of this arbitration enforcement request:
Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussions initiated by blocked sockpuppet
|
---|
In Other Nations Section, in United States Section, an entry bill entry has been mentioned which is not yet been accepted. Individual US Congressmen bill doesn't represent US policy. It is therefore requested to remove entries of bill and only Approved Publications shall be mentioned. Thanks Rugby9090 ( talk) 13:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Rugby9090 ( talk) 13:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Rugby9090 ( talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3 This matter is sent to WP:NPOVN [1]. Please avoid any further modifications till admins resolve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby9090 ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Bharatiya29 you have recently added Armenia and Bahrain views on "2016 URI Attack" [2]. [3]. The reference you mentioned has no names, designation and date. Please provided valid references. In the mean time, revert the text to original WP:UNDUE WP:BIASED Rugby9090 ( talk) 16:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) References BangladeshSomeone please rewrite the inaccurate Bangladeshi reaction. Syed Muazzem Ali is indeed the current Bangladeshi high commissioner to India [2]. There has also been an official reaction from PM Sheikh Hasina [3].-- AzaanJC ( talk) 19:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC) User:AzaanJC As per current citation of Bangladesh Foreign Affairs Website, he is not working there. Please share any reliable citation if he is currently working for Bangladesh Government. Please also share any press release by PM Sheikh Hasina / Bangladesh Government as shared by other countries in their Foreign Affairs Website. Rugby9090 ( talk) 20:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC) The foreign ministry website refers to his tenure as foreign secretary [4]. Hope that clears the confusion.-- AzaanJC ( talk) 20:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Link shared by you contains Bangladesh Former Foreign Secretaries list. As per link shared, Mr. Syed Muazzem Ali tenure ended in July 2001. Please share valid citations from Bangladesh Government. Rugby9090 ( talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Rugby9090 ( talk) 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
|
I added Pakistani military reaction, but it was reverted. Why? VR talk 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Most reliable sources I read on the attack mention the Kashmir unrest, since the killing of Burhan Wani. Here's a few: BBC News, New York Times, The Telegraph, LA Times, Washington Post etc. We should also mention this.
In fact, Spartacus, the user who reverted me, later on added "At the time of the attack, Kashmir was at the centre of a civil unrest, during which 85 civilians had died in clashes with security forces." So its unclear what exactly Spartacus' point is. VR talk 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The attack in Kashmir appears opportunely timed as Islamabad faces international scorn and condemnation over its support of proxy groups in the region; the attack also provides Nawaz Sharif with political fodder to lay the blame at India’s feet for its mistreatment of Kashmiri citizens before the UN General Assembly next week.
as far as I know. If it is an RS, "opinions", i.e., analytical content, are reliable. That is not so for NEWSORG. You need to read WP:NEWSORG carefully and understand what it says. Newspaper op-eds are not RS (by virtue of publication in the newspaper) because their opinions are not subject to editorial review. News magazines, which purposely publish analysis, with editorial review, are RS. The Diplomat is in the latter category. NYT and BBC are not. We don't accept any news reporter in the world as an RS unless he/she publishes the content in a medium subject to editorial review. In fact, many newspaper editors publishe in The Diplomat precisely for that reason. See 2016 Kashmir unrest for examples.
References
Please be aware that this article is subject to the editing restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir Conflict listed here. In particular, maximum 1 revert, no aspersions, no reversions without discussion, and a civility restriction. -- regentspark ( comment) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that there is analysis here ( 2016_Uri_attack#Analysis) by Indian media and military sources, shouldn't Pakistani analysis also be considered? Especially when it covered in major Indian newspapers? I added analysis by former General Pervez Musharraf, which was reported in both India Today and Pakistani sources, yet it was removed. (In fact, my edits were reverted without any discussion on the talk page) VR talk 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I have deleted the opinions attributed to Gen. Musharraf precisely for the reasons stated in the edit summary. They are not reactions to the attack. Secondly, they are private opinions of an individual, however notable he might be, countering official positions issued by a government. They can only be countered by the other government. If Gen. Musharraf were to be an RS, having published in peer-reviewed sources, that would be another matter. But he is not. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Just my opinion: Musharraf doesn't hold any governmental post anymore. Even though he was a former President and General, his reactions aren't really noteworthy as he doesn't hold a government position. We cannot add everyone's reactions. DinoBambinoNFS ( talk) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Musharraf could dance at parties and rarely enter a mosque but, at the same time, strongly defend jihad, the Taliban worldview, and the right for militants to cross into Indian Kashmir. After the coup, he stepped up support for Kashmiri militants and the Taliban to show that he was not soft on India. [1]
References
I've removed background as there's no RS sufficiently giving due weightage to the listed incident as background. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The Diplomat noted that the timing of the attack coincided with the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly the following week.[30]
Background sections are pretty important, and found in most similar WP:good articles. See these articles for examples:
If you think the current background section is not well-written, please help improve it, instead of deleting it outright. VR talk 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya recently added stuff from a source that has nothing to do with the Uri attack. This source was published in 2013, so it couldn't have even known about the Uri attack. The only one linking this source to the Uri attack is Kautilya himself, with is WP:SYNTH. (Note, that I'm ok with this source, as it clearly talks about the Uri attack.) VR talk 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I am forming a Article / Section for "False Acquisitions by Indian Media" starting with URI Attack. List down at least 5 events / news that turned out to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.44.53 ( talk) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
|
This edit seems to have duplicated the following content:
On 25 September, The Indian Army said that two Pakistani nationals originally from Azad Kashmir were arrested by the Border Security Force in the Uri sector. They were said to have been recruited by Jaish-e-Mohammad two years ago for the purpose of acting as guides to infiltrating groups in the Uri sector. These guides themselves did not hae a role in the Uri attack. They were being questioned for gathering intelligence.
This is now both in the Analysis section and Aftermath section. Typically arrests, and other events, go in the Aftermath section that's why I had moved it there. Someone (myself, or someone else) should go ahead and remove one of the two copies of the duplicate material. VR talk 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This edit removed the number of civilian deaths in the lede, simply saying "civilians were having clashes". I think the number 85 civilian deaths (or whatever is most often used in RS) is warranted as it has been mentioned by several reliable sources as the context for the attack. I agree with keeping this short, and not giving it WP:UNDUE, but the number "85" hardly takes up space. VR talk 17:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The background section currently says "The protests have been described as the "largest anti-India protests" against Indian rule in recent years.[by whom?]"
Various sources say this: CBC News, MetroNews, CBS News. They are too many to list. Any suggestions as to how we can better word this? VR talk 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
[Link to revert]
Jaish-e-Mohammed has participated in multiple terror attacks in India and has provided crucial aid to al Qaeda.... Military facilities in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have been frequently targeted by jihadist groups based in the region... Despite the mountain of evidence against Jaish-e-Mohammed and its emir, Masood Azhar, for their role in numerous terrorist attacks, Pakistan refuses to crack down on the group and its leader.
do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.There is no conclusion implied in my text. A and B are still as they are. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I reverted this bit of WP:OR. The source doesn't say anything about "militant groups", much less in "Kashmir" whatever that means. Rather it suggests Pakistan as the source of the attackers. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Lihaas made about a dozen edits today, none of which I find have any merit.
I recommend that we don't do major copy-editing until the dust has settled. Making cosmetic changes is ok, but not like this. If you want to reorganise sections etc., please discuss it first, unless you are sure that they are non-controversial. For adding tags like "by whom" etc., please check the source first and think about whether attribution is needed. Wikipedians don't always agree on where it is needed. We definitely need attribution if something looks like a strong opinion, held by isolated people or agencies. We don't need it if it is widely reported. For everything in between, people differ. And, please don't tag-bomb. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Mar4d removed this reported cross-border raid, claiming it is an "obvious hoax". I am not confident that it is. The Quint is a respectable source, and it said that it double-checked it and it stands by it. Other media sources have acknowledged it and some have analysed it. [1] [2] We simply don't know whether it is true or not. If it did indeed happen, and both India and Pakistan decided to keep it quiet, I salute their good sense. I am afraid it needs to remain in the article as an unconfirmed minority viewpoint. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Madhumandal121: I don't understand the point of this edit. You moved the text ahead of the citation, making it imply that the wrong content is attributed to the wrong source. Can you explain what you are trying to do? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I've modified the restrictions on the Kashmir conflict articles (see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016#India-Pakistan) because they are unworkable. There is no longer a 1RR restriction and neither do you need to explain every revert in the talk page (only if your revert is undone and you reinstate it). The other restrictions continue to apply. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a section in Military conflict regarding reaction of Hafiz Saeed on surgical strike which is clearly related to this topic so, I don't believe it should be removed. If anyone has personal issues with this please discuss here. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 08:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Mar4d rightly points out that the inclusion of Musharraf's statement has been contested, but conveniently fails to mention that he supported its inclusion. Is he trying to have it both ways?
It seems that Hafeez Seyed's statement is a reaction to the 2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So let it go there, rather than here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I request all experienced user from India or Pakistan don't be a part of Edit war and respect other users contribution, If you disagree with something please use talk page rather then reverting each other's edits and try to get WP:3O response. Thank you – GSS ( talk) 13:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I have made a very specific section on the alleged perpetrators ( 2016_Uri_attack#Perpetrators). I feel like that's all anyone cares about. So let's not dance around the issue and address it head on. VR talk 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems mere publicity of the new article. — TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 07:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.As the article already shows
Campaignbox India terrorism
, which lists
Jammu Terror Attack 2018, I dont find any need duplicate it again at the 'See Also'. It's simply against
WP:MOSLAYOUT, hence will remove it.—
TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡
ʞlɐʇ
09:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)