![]() | 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 |
How about replacing the current infobox with spy infobox?— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It is a very important international development and both the Indian and Pakistani accounts of the story are presented. Please keep this article.-- Intellectual123 cool ( talk) 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Folks, please be careful with attributions like "India claims," unless the sources say that. Attributions need to be exact. No WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@ The Masked Man of Mega Might: Why removing sourced info? You can re-phrase some of the words if necessary, Given that only the last line seems to me a bit copy of the source. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is no excuse to remove reliably sourced content. I suggest you to do a self-revert. MBlaze Lightning - talk! 08:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
World Baloch Women’s Forum president Naela Quadri Baloch on Saturday denied having any information about the alleged 'RAW agent'. She further said India must support the people of Balochistan and stop Pakistan from committing genocide against her people.You wrote "President of World Baloch Women’s Forum Naela Quadri Baloch' has however, claimed that Pakistan have no information about the alleged RAW agent. She further said India must support the people of Balochistan and stop Pakistan from committing genocide against her people." This is an exact reproduction of the news story and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I've linked to the relevant policies in the edit summary. Diannaa has already provided you with the copyright guidelines in the section User talk:MBlaze Lightning#Wikipedia and copyright on your talk page. Please go through it once again. The Masked Man of Mega Might ( talk) 08:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The recent WP:NPOV edits need to be discussed. The editor should also refrain from COPYVIO while adding content especially if there's no consensus for the same.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 15:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
References
To begin with:
This is what I think gives a detailed but neutral tone to the opening...
OK so I have been editing the article on my sandbox to get it to a nuetral POV. It is still a work in progress as I am away on business at present. I will be returning to it in about 3 days. It has had ALL cites removed, because the ones used, in the large part, were NOT very credible at all. Tabloid stubs are not credible sources, nor is some of the longer articles as the amount of Nationalism and therefore biased POV is shocking. The BBC and the New York Times were just acceptable. Other third party source material will need to be found. Otherwise it will have 2 sorces as cites. The repeatative nature of the article is being cleanen up. It will be half as long at most compared to the original. EVERYTHING is a CLAIM with the exception of the admission of India to Yadav being an Ex-Naval Officer in the Engineering Branch who retired early. India media states one pov whilst Pakistan media states the opposite and vic versa. It is ridiculous in the terms of finding a consensus about usable data. I will do my best.
Off-topic exchange
|
---|
Is this a joke? Are you seriously speaking to me in such a manner? Wake up to yourself.
|
@ Ghatus and TripWire: Please stop going back and forth. You both will end up blocked if you continue the same pattern of edits from before. The Masked Man of Mega Might ( talk) 11:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please put your comments on Nuro Dragonfly's rewrite here
I'll state very seriously that the Geneva Convention is nothing like
WP:OR, in any way; its correctly using the facts of the matter at hand; Yadhav has been portrayed, via a video broadcast, as an Enemy Combatant of Pakistan, to a room full of journalists. This is literally against the rules.
I agree that the policy of WP:SYNTHESIS would need to be carefully monitored, used appropriately, and is a valid concern.
My point about it is this; the article does not word the information in correct WP policy parameters, but uses the 'confession' extremely inappropriately in the context, and the wording, as it is written so far. That's my main concern, not that is shouldn't be mentioned at all. It has happened; it is part of the story as a whole.
WP policy doesn't have a clear cut statement on this sort of information, and how it is used appropriately, that I've managed to find, other than that when a consensus is formed, by editors who care to debate it, it can be used accordingly to said consensus formed, which of course is our primary policy here, so that is the next step with that part of the article for sure.
As for cite entries, that is a more complicated matter. I felt that there was to many citations anyway, and it could be trimmed down quite substantially, but still have information cited well enough for our standards.
Its a messy topic and has real problems with it. Were not discussing WWII NAZI's who have since passed away 30 years ago, were talking about living, current people and issues. The fact of who has captured who is irrelevant to me; in reverse I would be concerned about the same thing and comment exactly the same.
Regards..
OK so I have been reviewing this matter with a new eye as requested to do so. One thing that needs to be understood is the proper meaning of the word Propaganda, so if you misinterpret or misunderstand the word, please go and look it up.
review of sources
|
---|
1 - this by NDTV is a stub. Without the video attached it isn't really achieving much, and I don't think that a source should rely on video that can be removed by the broadcaster as reliable source material. I wouldn't be supporting this source 2 - this, in Tribune is hyperbole, whilst contradicting itself when, very insincerely, trying to sound at all neutral, sometimes in the same sentences, which is shocking journalism. The only good part of this source is that it has tried to cover a large amount of the information that is being thrown around. The editorial is blatantly pro-Pakistan's version of events, and is clearly sanctioning the State propaganda that is being used by official sources. That is called Nationalism, which I don't condone or support. I wouldn't be supporting this source. 3 - this by GeoTV is slightly better written in its content, but is even more of a mouth piece for the Military and Government stated 'evidence' in this matter, and makes some very unbelievable claims. Not supportive. 4 - this, in The Wire is well written journalism, it makes a strong effort to keep the wording in the realm it should be in, that of a informative narrative, not Nationalistic rant. I support this. 5 - this, in Dawn attempts to give an editorial instead of a governmental speech, but is still very poorly written. I'm 50/50 with this one. 6 - this, in NYT may be from the New York Times but is little more than a stub with little substance other than to reiterate Pakistani officials views and not also include Indian ones, which I find extremely suspicious and very poor journalism. I was initially supportive of this source because of who it is, but with further analysis and rereading, it is little more than a reprint of other Pakistani sources already on the reflist. I'm mainly un-supportive of this now, but it is the NYT, which caries some weight. Problem is, it's not written by a foreign correspondent. 7 - this, in Dawn is once more just blatant Nationalistic Propaganda, not journalism. It contentiously uses words that try's to make everything sound as if everything that has been said by the Pakistani Authorities is all true and self evident. That's not journalism, that's propaganda and Nationalism. I'll not support this source. 8 - this, in New Indian Express is poorly written. It doesn't cover much, or accurately written, information. I'm 50/50 with this one. 9 - this, in Tribune is again very poor attempts at journalism, and reads as nothing more than a government mouthpiece, which is not a reliable source. Not supportive either. 10 - this, in Dawn at least attempts to sound like a journalistic piece of work, but still makes poor reading. I'd support this article though. 11 - this, in BBC News from the BBC is nearly useless as far as I'm concerned. Again as like the NYT, they are the only Foreign Correspondent news outlets covering the story but have used local sources and are poorly written. As with the NYT, only because of who they are do I except their inclusion as being relative. 12 - this, in Tribune is more of the same vitriol of hardline Nationalistic writing. It represents itself to know the truth, instead of using much more appropriate language. I don't support this attempt at journalism. 13 - this, in Indian Express is at least a well written and balanced piece. It has flaws but very little. I would support this source. 14 - this, in Dawn is also rhetoric, not journalism. It might be considered by others as a reliable source, but not by me. It also just rehashes other sources and is not required. 15 - this, in Indian Express is poorly written and not required, as its covered in other articles. 16 - this, in NYT is a repeat and shouldn't be included. 17 - this, by Zee News is a stub that raises other issue, about US Pakistan relations, more than anything else. Not supportive. 18 - this, in New Indian Express is also blatantly nationalistic about the matters and doesn't try to be informative. I wouldn't support this source. 19 - this, in Ahmedabad Mirror makes very unsubstantiated claims, that included apparent Insider sources and ex-intelligence officials 'speaking' to them, etc. Not good enough at all. 20 - this, in Dawn plagiarises the previous, poorly. Not supportive, as I don't think we are allowed to include plagiarism on WP as a source. 21 - this, by Geo TV is another example of he Geneva Convention being broken by Pakistan in airing a 'Confession' in the first place. It is little more than a stub and does nothing but support the Illegal use of such actions by any government. 22 - this, in Business Standard is what you'd expect from the other side of the argument. Badly written and not more than a stub, and as such not good source material. 23 - this, in India Today literally Plagiarises the previous, without citing the fact. 24 - this, in New Indian Express is a repeat??? 25 - this is the Indian Government official release on the matter. Exactly as any other government would behave. I'm supportive as it is the only official document used in the whole article. 26 - this, in Tribune is once more nothing less than Nationalistic Propaganda by an apparent media outlet. Not supportive. 27 - this, by 92 News site is blocked by my security apparatuses on my PC so I don't support it for a breach of due diligence in knowing what you can and can't put up on WP. 28 - this, in Tribune is once again extremely bad attempts at journalism, that is clearly Nationalist propaganda. Locations of sources added - Kautilya3 |
I have outlined Propaganda, Nationalism, claims presented as facts, irrelevant inclusions of so-called source material that bare little relevance, blatantly taking sides, etc, etc, etc. Now I have re-read the biased WP section and the other relevant parts on that page, for diligences sake, and as far as I'm concerned a large portion of this material is extremely UN-reliable. My initial opinion has changed little, with some exceptions. The fact that the Torture/Confession/Interrogation, whatever you call it, video is used at all is reprehensible, and its inclusion is shocking, not to mention against International Law, in some ways. It is also, once again, against the Geneva Convention on the treatment of Suspected Enemy Combatants, let alone civilians, to publish or use at all in the manner that has been done so.
The article on Yadhav is very poorly written and basses itself on information that is conjectured to the extreme and doesn't carry much weight in reality. It makes claims as if they are facts, and yes I'm well aware of the policy regarding this, that doesn't change anything, as far as this article is in need of AfD, or completely rewritten, based on the said WP policies. It is not a notable event outside the subcontinent at all, let alone in the region as a whole, by the material available. The source material is compromised in various ways I've already outlined. The fact that Tripwire tried to Justify and Defend the 'Confession' in the way that they have done, by thinking it was a good choice of words by them to say "he looks fine and comfortable, and doesn't look beaten up, etc" is shocking to come across another human being saying such things, about such a subject, which makes it clear to me they have little regard, or barely any understanding, of how such matter are considered and treated by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. I find it nothing less than them wanting to push a Pakistani Nationalist Agenda onto others, in the way they have reacted to my concerns, and their apparent misunderstanding of the word Propaganda, and what it actually is. I make my statements assessed on the facts before me, nothing else. I do not accept that I'm am using personal POV, I very seriously think that this is an issue that needs addressing with more urgency than has been.
I do not consider the participants of the article to have found anything near a neutral POV, and it is barely evident of even trying. Once again, yes I have re-read WP policies and I do not think that I am erring in my assessments, based on those facts, and I do believe that I have used the correct expressions to convey this, without going into emotional ranting on my behalf, and if others read it as such by me then I can only state that I have done my best to use the appropriate words without using the type of commentary that I would like, I can tell you that. Some of you may think that this is nothing to be concerned about and that its just an article, but Torture (yes I do think that the confession is such) is not a laughing matter and I think we all should consider it the responsibility of WP to uphold certain standards.
I've made my points and stated my response to the article as a whole and I know leave it to others to debate, as unless I'm specifically asked to contribute, I don't consider this article something that should be on WP until it is completely rewritten in its entirety. I wont be commenting further unless asked to do so. I don't require a summary of others thoughts on my comments unless you seriously want to debate the actual content issue I've raised, if not then leave me out of it, please, because I have nothing left to say. And if others think that I have not managed to get passed some perceived bias of my own, well I can't change that, because I feel that I have tried extremely hard to keep this about the evidence before me, and nothing more. To Finalise, I have used the policies we have here on WP to make my judgement on this article, for the umpteenth time, and I still call it as I see it.
@ TripWire: - Once again, YOU are trying to claim something that I have EXPRESSLY stated is actually what YOU are doing, in all of the points you have raised. YOU have not followed any of these policies, at all. YOU keep pointing fingers at all the other editors on here to PUSH your POV ONLY into the article. YOU keep mentioning policies that are what YOU need to learn, not me or anyone else. YOU are the one that has claimed ownership, not me. I haven't even edited it yet, I've been having the required Talk Page debate, nothing more. YOU need to learn the difference. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead claims that Mr. Yadav was arrested in Balochistan. This is totally a Pakistani claim. Indian claim is that he was abducted from Iran. Indian Press statement So, both claims are to be presented in the lead. Ghatus ( talk) 11:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat I have undone your last revert, as you have violated WP:POV blatantly with your comments, which read: "..the Indian source is just lying, check the talk page..". Unless you have some special insight that the rest of us don't have, do not do such things please. You will be mentioned on the ANI for this, I am informing you.
These are only Pak claims in the Infobox - a)"Service:Intelligence", b)"Active:2003—2016", c)"Years of service:1987—", d)"Rank:Commander".
a) - India denies that he was an intellegence officer. b) & c) - India claimed that he is not active and retired in early 2000s. d) - India denies him to be a commander. The inflammations there in the Infobox are solely based on Pakistani claims. Ghatus ( talk) 01:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not understandable. Kautaliya3, why would you ask me for gaining consensus for (1) removing something [claimed to have been arrested] which already does not have consensus for its addition and (2) for something for which [official statement] discussion has already been carried and no objection has been raised. I think you need to participate in the section concerning this issue, which is already under discussion before telling others to gain consensus. — TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 21:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the official statement should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC) I think the official statement should not be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomWarrior01 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 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) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
update this article with " On 10 April 2017, Pakistan military sentenced Jadhav to death. [1] 119.160.119.126 ( talk) 09:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is falsely implicated by Pakistan as a RAW agent and created forged documents to make him a RAW agent. Pakistan has a history of creating such fale stories to implicate any Indian found anywhere in Pakistan. Truth seeker1 ( talk) 14:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kulbhushan Sudhir Yadav (also spelled Kul Bhushan Yadav alias Hussain Mubarak Patel) is an Indian national arrested in Iran (Not from Balochistan), Pakistan, over charges of terrorism and spying for the Research and Analysis Wing intelligence agency. Upanand1981 ( talk) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the real surname(last name) of Kulbhushan?
is it Yadav or Jadhav (Dawn News)? Because on Marathi News television channels and Dawn News it is showing Jadhav.
-- Abhinav Garule ( talk) 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please redirect article to Kulbhushan Jadhav /info/en/?search=Kulbhushan_Jadhav as Jadhav is real surname. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/kulbhushan-jadhav-baloch-leaders-pakistan-india-sushma-swaraj-death-sentence-4611228/ https://thewire.in/123381/kulbhushan-jadhav-india-pakistan/ Abhinavgarule ( talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Jadhav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jadhav spelled as Yadhav 2601:84:4502:4A87:71EB:6726:3B7C:82C0 ( talk) 04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Noticed so many edit wars, claims on perspective up to even for the erroneous last name correction, the Indian view , the Pakistani view. Sad to state that we forgot the spirit of Wikipedia. Most of the editors were only focused on supporting their pov with a reliable secondary source instead of focusing on the quality of article. This article is of significant political influence and search engines will redirect readers to this page for info. Let us please set a good example by targeting a 'B' class for this piece instead of trying to put our individual bias. It will be helpful for one and all and is in the spirit of Wikipedia as well. I am commenting today as there has been a recent event on this case, and another round of edit wars shall follow if not we were ourselves to craft something that is acceptable, neutral , non-offensive in the first place itself. In good faith , Devopam ( talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
A minor edit if possible, please add Indians in Pakistan article under subsection See Also. Cheers. -- PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section about stay order is invalid as ICJ never made any claims of having authorised a stay order, either remove the section in it's entirety or mention the fact that it was just a dead-end to India's pis aller (French for the move of last resort), I recommend mentioning a neutral statement regarding the basis of Indian claims.
I myself read all the pertinent press statements by ICJ on their website ( http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/), The closest thing i found to a stay order was a mere 'request' for provisional measures, since Yadav is such a big asset to the case, the nature of this statement was barely a request and until the hearing is conducted on 15th May, ICJ's role is strictly advisory, Visiting ICJ's site, one can find a section dedicated to 'decisions' no stay orders are mentioned there either.
I also base my request on this article below that may act as a citation: https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/icj-rubbishes-indian-medias-claims-regarding-staying-jadhavs-death-sentence-will-hear-pakistan-first/ Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 10:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not an order! A stay order is legally binding, more like "Please keep him alive so we can make a decision on whether u can kill him or not" Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 12:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 12:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 13:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Jadhav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change, "On May 10, 2017, the International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Jadhav after India approached it against the death sentence." to "On 18 May 2017, the International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Jadhav after India approached it against the death sentence." [1]
change, "On 9 May 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered a stay on Jadhav's sentencing after India approached it to contest Pakistan's death penalty." to "On 18 May 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered a stay on Jadhav's sentencing after India approached it to contest Pakistan's death penalty." [2] Mfarazbaig ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
References
TripWire Please read the official MEA release where the India spokesperson clearly states "As to the question of his so-called fake identity or original Indian passport, we can only ascertain all this once we have consular access". This settles the claim that India has objected to the passport he has carried or atleast not agreed to it and is thus as of now a Pakistani claim. Link here( [3]). The word alleged has always existed and was removed recently by another editor in a so called "copy-edit". Thus, it was added back. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It's surprising that the link you provided only says that the Indian authorities can only say something about his alias once they are given consular access. You are basing your argument on a vague point but are not ready to accept that the Indian media itself has unearthed that Yadev has been living inside India under the alias Hussain Patel, have also owned properties under that name and is also known to his neighbors with that name. Moreover, many Indian journalists have been questioning Indian authorities so as why did Yadav had 2 passports, which todate Indian officials hasn't given any worthwhile response. The only argument in the press release you provided (which in itself is highly unreliable source as it's the official version guven by the Indian govt) is that he was kidnapped from Iran and that they will comment further once they are given consular access to Yadav. I dont know how can you deny RS like the Indian media itself which has proved that Yadav did has a second name, owned properties in that name and lived in Mumbai under that name. I can quote numerous other RS saying the same thing, but only quoted the Indian sources as Pakistani sources can be charged with carrying /supporting the Pakistani version of he story. Surprisingly, it is the Indian RS that are saying that Yadev did has an alias of Hussain Patel. MEA merely refusing to comment on this cannot be taken as RS, especially when it hasn't categorically denied that the passport under his alias (Patel) didnt exit. Anyhow, I dont have anything more to say for now, so I rest my case.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The code name, claimed by Pakistan mentioned are incorrect. If one goes through the references provided, it becomes clear that the so called code name "Monkey" is invented just to rattle Indian counterparts and sensatise general opinion. This goes against factual and neutral nature of Wikipedia. Thus it needs to be removed. Aniruddha ( talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Anachronist: Why you are removing the sentence only because you find one word to be contrary to WP:NPOV? That's really subjective argument and I was expecting you to raise on talk page first. Whether it should be on lead or body, I had already told that you can move it anywhere you would like to. As of now, you have only removed the important content, leading me to ask if you really want the content or not? If you want it then how you would like to reword it. Sdmarathe ( talk) 05:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The U.N had clearly shown concerns over Pakistan government “authorising military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences”. The U.N has been quoted here. I have provided a total of 4 highly reliable sources one of which is this :- https://m.timesofindia.com/india/un-report-slams-opaque-pak-military-courts-let-civil-courts-try-jadhav-like-cases-says-panel/articleshow/58689592.cms
You Winged Blades of Godric need to read the sources provided before removing anything. Adding The Truth ( talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Adding The Truth ( talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
authorising military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offencesand it's a part of many other critical observations.The rest of linkage to Kulbhushan's case is pure OR by Indian Media units, who are obviously biased to a certian extent.Mention iff reliable third-party-sources (not Indian or Pakistani) has criticized Pakistan's handling of the case, based on the report.or else ask for Dispute resolution. ∯WBG converse 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The UNITED NATIONS criticized the handling of civilian terror related cases by the Pakistan military courts. Is it not third-party and reliable enough? Just because you don't like Indian media and think it's OR doesn't mean they're wrong and make it such. There are plenty of Pakistan media citations provided throughout the article. How are they reliable then if Indian media isn't according to you?
If you're concerned about it being only in the lead and not the body, you are free to create a subsection for it.
I have told you plenty of times already, don't remove anything before any consensus here on the talk page. Adding The Truth ( talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Sam Sailor, I'm new here as you can tell by my profile. I was hoping someone jump in to give direction to this pointless discussion. Please make a comment on this issue. Adding The Truth ( talk) 16:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This section in the article doesn't seem NPOV since all the links belong to Pakistani news agencies which might provide doctored videos and audio clips. The confessions are exaggerated and written in more detail than needed. This need to be shorten up and tone needs to be changed. It looks like Pakistanis have hold on this article. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
How about replacing the current infobox with spy infobox?— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It is a very important international development and both the Indian and Pakistani accounts of the story are presented. Please keep this article.-- Intellectual123 cool ( talk) 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Folks, please be careful with attributions like "India claims," unless the sources say that. Attributions need to be exact. No WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@ The Masked Man of Mega Might: Why removing sourced info? You can re-phrase some of the words if necessary, Given that only the last line seems to me a bit copy of the source. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is no excuse to remove reliably sourced content. I suggest you to do a self-revert. MBlaze Lightning - talk! 08:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
World Baloch Women’s Forum president Naela Quadri Baloch on Saturday denied having any information about the alleged 'RAW agent'. She further said India must support the people of Balochistan and stop Pakistan from committing genocide against her people.You wrote "President of World Baloch Women’s Forum Naela Quadri Baloch' has however, claimed that Pakistan have no information about the alleged RAW agent. She further said India must support the people of Balochistan and stop Pakistan from committing genocide against her people." This is an exact reproduction of the news story and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I've linked to the relevant policies in the edit summary. Diannaa has already provided you with the copyright guidelines in the section User talk:MBlaze Lightning#Wikipedia and copyright on your talk page. Please go through it once again. The Masked Man of Mega Might ( talk) 08:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The recent WP:NPOV edits need to be discussed. The editor should also refrain from COPYVIO while adding content especially if there's no consensus for the same.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 15:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
References
To begin with:
This is what I think gives a detailed but neutral tone to the opening...
OK so I have been editing the article on my sandbox to get it to a nuetral POV. It is still a work in progress as I am away on business at present. I will be returning to it in about 3 days. It has had ALL cites removed, because the ones used, in the large part, were NOT very credible at all. Tabloid stubs are not credible sources, nor is some of the longer articles as the amount of Nationalism and therefore biased POV is shocking. The BBC and the New York Times were just acceptable. Other third party source material will need to be found. Otherwise it will have 2 sorces as cites. The repeatative nature of the article is being cleanen up. It will be half as long at most compared to the original. EVERYTHING is a CLAIM with the exception of the admission of India to Yadav being an Ex-Naval Officer in the Engineering Branch who retired early. India media states one pov whilst Pakistan media states the opposite and vic versa. It is ridiculous in the terms of finding a consensus about usable data. I will do my best.
Off-topic exchange
|
---|
Is this a joke? Are you seriously speaking to me in such a manner? Wake up to yourself.
|
@ Ghatus and TripWire: Please stop going back and forth. You both will end up blocked if you continue the same pattern of edits from before. The Masked Man of Mega Might ( talk) 11:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please put your comments on Nuro Dragonfly's rewrite here
I'll state very seriously that the Geneva Convention is nothing like
WP:OR, in any way; its correctly using the facts of the matter at hand; Yadhav has been portrayed, via a video broadcast, as an Enemy Combatant of Pakistan, to a room full of journalists. This is literally against the rules.
I agree that the policy of WP:SYNTHESIS would need to be carefully monitored, used appropriately, and is a valid concern.
My point about it is this; the article does not word the information in correct WP policy parameters, but uses the 'confession' extremely inappropriately in the context, and the wording, as it is written so far. That's my main concern, not that is shouldn't be mentioned at all. It has happened; it is part of the story as a whole.
WP policy doesn't have a clear cut statement on this sort of information, and how it is used appropriately, that I've managed to find, other than that when a consensus is formed, by editors who care to debate it, it can be used accordingly to said consensus formed, which of course is our primary policy here, so that is the next step with that part of the article for sure.
As for cite entries, that is a more complicated matter. I felt that there was to many citations anyway, and it could be trimmed down quite substantially, but still have information cited well enough for our standards.
Its a messy topic and has real problems with it. Were not discussing WWII NAZI's who have since passed away 30 years ago, were talking about living, current people and issues. The fact of who has captured who is irrelevant to me; in reverse I would be concerned about the same thing and comment exactly the same.
Regards..
OK so I have been reviewing this matter with a new eye as requested to do so. One thing that needs to be understood is the proper meaning of the word Propaganda, so if you misinterpret or misunderstand the word, please go and look it up.
review of sources
|
---|
1 - this by NDTV is a stub. Without the video attached it isn't really achieving much, and I don't think that a source should rely on video that can be removed by the broadcaster as reliable source material. I wouldn't be supporting this source 2 - this, in Tribune is hyperbole, whilst contradicting itself when, very insincerely, trying to sound at all neutral, sometimes in the same sentences, which is shocking journalism. The only good part of this source is that it has tried to cover a large amount of the information that is being thrown around. The editorial is blatantly pro-Pakistan's version of events, and is clearly sanctioning the State propaganda that is being used by official sources. That is called Nationalism, which I don't condone or support. I wouldn't be supporting this source. 3 - this by GeoTV is slightly better written in its content, but is even more of a mouth piece for the Military and Government stated 'evidence' in this matter, and makes some very unbelievable claims. Not supportive. 4 - this, in The Wire is well written journalism, it makes a strong effort to keep the wording in the realm it should be in, that of a informative narrative, not Nationalistic rant. I support this. 5 - this, in Dawn attempts to give an editorial instead of a governmental speech, but is still very poorly written. I'm 50/50 with this one. 6 - this, in NYT may be from the New York Times but is little more than a stub with little substance other than to reiterate Pakistani officials views and not also include Indian ones, which I find extremely suspicious and very poor journalism. I was initially supportive of this source because of who it is, but with further analysis and rereading, it is little more than a reprint of other Pakistani sources already on the reflist. I'm mainly un-supportive of this now, but it is the NYT, which caries some weight. Problem is, it's not written by a foreign correspondent. 7 - this, in Dawn is once more just blatant Nationalistic Propaganda, not journalism. It contentiously uses words that try's to make everything sound as if everything that has been said by the Pakistani Authorities is all true and self evident. That's not journalism, that's propaganda and Nationalism. I'll not support this source. 8 - this, in New Indian Express is poorly written. It doesn't cover much, or accurately written, information. I'm 50/50 with this one. 9 - this, in Tribune is again very poor attempts at journalism, and reads as nothing more than a government mouthpiece, which is not a reliable source. Not supportive either. 10 - this, in Dawn at least attempts to sound like a journalistic piece of work, but still makes poor reading. I'd support this article though. 11 - this, in BBC News from the BBC is nearly useless as far as I'm concerned. Again as like the NYT, they are the only Foreign Correspondent news outlets covering the story but have used local sources and are poorly written. As with the NYT, only because of who they are do I except their inclusion as being relative. 12 - this, in Tribune is more of the same vitriol of hardline Nationalistic writing. It represents itself to know the truth, instead of using much more appropriate language. I don't support this attempt at journalism. 13 - this, in Indian Express is at least a well written and balanced piece. It has flaws but very little. I would support this source. 14 - this, in Dawn is also rhetoric, not journalism. It might be considered by others as a reliable source, but not by me. It also just rehashes other sources and is not required. 15 - this, in Indian Express is poorly written and not required, as its covered in other articles. 16 - this, in NYT is a repeat and shouldn't be included. 17 - this, by Zee News is a stub that raises other issue, about US Pakistan relations, more than anything else. Not supportive. 18 - this, in New Indian Express is also blatantly nationalistic about the matters and doesn't try to be informative. I wouldn't support this source. 19 - this, in Ahmedabad Mirror makes very unsubstantiated claims, that included apparent Insider sources and ex-intelligence officials 'speaking' to them, etc. Not good enough at all. 20 - this, in Dawn plagiarises the previous, poorly. Not supportive, as I don't think we are allowed to include plagiarism on WP as a source. 21 - this, by Geo TV is another example of he Geneva Convention being broken by Pakistan in airing a 'Confession' in the first place. It is little more than a stub and does nothing but support the Illegal use of such actions by any government. 22 - this, in Business Standard is what you'd expect from the other side of the argument. Badly written and not more than a stub, and as such not good source material. 23 - this, in India Today literally Plagiarises the previous, without citing the fact. 24 - this, in New Indian Express is a repeat??? 25 - this is the Indian Government official release on the matter. Exactly as any other government would behave. I'm supportive as it is the only official document used in the whole article. 26 - this, in Tribune is once more nothing less than Nationalistic Propaganda by an apparent media outlet. Not supportive. 27 - this, by 92 News site is blocked by my security apparatuses on my PC so I don't support it for a breach of due diligence in knowing what you can and can't put up on WP. 28 - this, in Tribune is once again extremely bad attempts at journalism, that is clearly Nationalist propaganda. Locations of sources added - Kautilya3 |
I have outlined Propaganda, Nationalism, claims presented as facts, irrelevant inclusions of so-called source material that bare little relevance, blatantly taking sides, etc, etc, etc. Now I have re-read the biased WP section and the other relevant parts on that page, for diligences sake, and as far as I'm concerned a large portion of this material is extremely UN-reliable. My initial opinion has changed little, with some exceptions. The fact that the Torture/Confession/Interrogation, whatever you call it, video is used at all is reprehensible, and its inclusion is shocking, not to mention against International Law, in some ways. It is also, once again, against the Geneva Convention on the treatment of Suspected Enemy Combatants, let alone civilians, to publish or use at all in the manner that has been done so.
The article on Yadhav is very poorly written and basses itself on information that is conjectured to the extreme and doesn't carry much weight in reality. It makes claims as if they are facts, and yes I'm well aware of the policy regarding this, that doesn't change anything, as far as this article is in need of AfD, or completely rewritten, based on the said WP policies. It is not a notable event outside the subcontinent at all, let alone in the region as a whole, by the material available. The source material is compromised in various ways I've already outlined. The fact that Tripwire tried to Justify and Defend the 'Confession' in the way that they have done, by thinking it was a good choice of words by them to say "he looks fine and comfortable, and doesn't look beaten up, etc" is shocking to come across another human being saying such things, about such a subject, which makes it clear to me they have little regard, or barely any understanding, of how such matter are considered and treated by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. I find it nothing less than them wanting to push a Pakistani Nationalist Agenda onto others, in the way they have reacted to my concerns, and their apparent misunderstanding of the word Propaganda, and what it actually is. I make my statements assessed on the facts before me, nothing else. I do not accept that I'm am using personal POV, I very seriously think that this is an issue that needs addressing with more urgency than has been.
I do not consider the participants of the article to have found anything near a neutral POV, and it is barely evident of even trying. Once again, yes I have re-read WP policies and I do not think that I am erring in my assessments, based on those facts, and I do believe that I have used the correct expressions to convey this, without going into emotional ranting on my behalf, and if others read it as such by me then I can only state that I have done my best to use the appropriate words without using the type of commentary that I would like, I can tell you that. Some of you may think that this is nothing to be concerned about and that its just an article, but Torture (yes I do think that the confession is such) is not a laughing matter and I think we all should consider it the responsibility of WP to uphold certain standards.
I've made my points and stated my response to the article as a whole and I know leave it to others to debate, as unless I'm specifically asked to contribute, I don't consider this article something that should be on WP until it is completely rewritten in its entirety. I wont be commenting further unless asked to do so. I don't require a summary of others thoughts on my comments unless you seriously want to debate the actual content issue I've raised, if not then leave me out of it, please, because I have nothing left to say. And if others think that I have not managed to get passed some perceived bias of my own, well I can't change that, because I feel that I have tried extremely hard to keep this about the evidence before me, and nothing more. To Finalise, I have used the policies we have here on WP to make my judgement on this article, for the umpteenth time, and I still call it as I see it.
@ TripWire: - Once again, YOU are trying to claim something that I have EXPRESSLY stated is actually what YOU are doing, in all of the points you have raised. YOU have not followed any of these policies, at all. YOU keep pointing fingers at all the other editors on here to PUSH your POV ONLY into the article. YOU keep mentioning policies that are what YOU need to learn, not me or anyone else. YOU are the one that has claimed ownership, not me. I haven't even edited it yet, I've been having the required Talk Page debate, nothing more. YOU need to learn the difference. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The lead claims that Mr. Yadav was arrested in Balochistan. This is totally a Pakistani claim. Indian claim is that he was abducted from Iran. Indian Press statement So, both claims are to be presented in the lead. Ghatus ( talk) 11:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat I have undone your last revert, as you have violated WP:POV blatantly with your comments, which read: "..the Indian source is just lying, check the talk page..". Unless you have some special insight that the rest of us don't have, do not do such things please. You will be mentioned on the ANI for this, I am informing you.
These are only Pak claims in the Infobox - a)"Service:Intelligence", b)"Active:2003—2016", c)"Years of service:1987—", d)"Rank:Commander".
a) - India denies that he was an intellegence officer. b) & c) - India claimed that he is not active and retired in early 2000s. d) - India denies him to be a commander. The inflammations there in the Infobox are solely based on Pakistani claims. Ghatus ( talk) 01:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not understandable. Kautaliya3, why would you ask me for gaining consensus for (1) removing something [claimed to have been arrested] which already does not have consensus for its addition and (2) for something for which [official statement] discussion has already been carried and no objection has been raised. I think you need to participate in the section concerning this issue, which is already under discussion before telling others to gain consensus. — TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 21:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the official statement should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse ( talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC) I think the official statement should not be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomWarrior01 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 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) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
update this article with " On 10 April 2017, Pakistan military sentenced Jadhav to death. [1] 119.160.119.126 ( talk) 09:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
He is falsely implicated by Pakistan as a RAW agent and created forged documents to make him a RAW agent. Pakistan has a history of creating such fale stories to implicate any Indian found anywhere in Pakistan. Truth seeker1 ( talk) 14:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kulbhushan Sudhir Yadav (also spelled Kul Bhushan Yadav alias Hussain Mubarak Patel) is an Indian national arrested in Iran (Not from Balochistan), Pakistan, over charges of terrorism and spying for the Research and Analysis Wing intelligence agency. Upanand1981 ( talk) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
What is the real surname(last name) of Kulbhushan?
is it Yadav or Jadhav (Dawn News)? Because on Marathi News television channels and Dawn News it is showing Jadhav.
-- Abhinav Garule ( talk) 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Yadav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please redirect article to Kulbhushan Jadhav /info/en/?search=Kulbhushan_Jadhav as Jadhav is real surname. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/kulbhushan-jadhav-baloch-leaders-pakistan-india-sushma-swaraj-death-sentence-4611228/ https://thewire.in/123381/kulbhushan-jadhav-india-pakistan/ Abhinavgarule ( talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Jadhav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Jadhav spelled as Yadhav 2601:84:4502:4A87:71EB:6726:3B7C:82C0 ( talk) 04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Noticed so many edit wars, claims on perspective up to even for the erroneous last name correction, the Indian view , the Pakistani view. Sad to state that we forgot the spirit of Wikipedia. Most of the editors were only focused on supporting their pov with a reliable secondary source instead of focusing on the quality of article. This article is of significant political influence and search engines will redirect readers to this page for info. Let us please set a good example by targeting a 'B' class for this piece instead of trying to put our individual bias. It will be helpful for one and all and is in the spirit of Wikipedia as well. I am commenting today as there has been a recent event on this case, and another round of edit wars shall follow if not we were ourselves to craft something that is acceptable, neutral , non-offensive in the first place itself. In good faith , Devopam ( talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
A minor edit if possible, please add Indians in Pakistan article under subsection See Also. Cheers. -- PAKHIGHWAY ( talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The section about stay order is invalid as ICJ never made any claims of having authorised a stay order, either remove the section in it's entirety or mention the fact that it was just a dead-end to India's pis aller (French for the move of last resort), I recommend mentioning a neutral statement regarding the basis of Indian claims.
I myself read all the pertinent press statements by ICJ on their website ( http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/), The closest thing i found to a stay order was a mere 'request' for provisional measures, since Yadav is such a big asset to the case, the nature of this statement was barely a request and until the hearing is conducted on 15th May, ICJ's role is strictly advisory, Visiting ICJ's site, one can find a section dedicated to 'decisions' no stay orders are mentioned there either.
I also base my request on this article below that may act as a citation: https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/icj-rubbishes-indian-medias-claims-regarding-staying-jadhavs-death-sentence-will-hear-pakistan-first/ Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 10:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not an order! A stay order is legally binding, more like "Please keep him alive so we can make a decision on whether u can kill him or not" Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 12:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 12:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure Hydrogen Radium ( talk) 13:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Kulbhushan Jadhav has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change, "On May 10, 2017, the International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Jadhav after India approached it against the death sentence." to "On 18 May 2017, the International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Jadhav after India approached it against the death sentence." [1]
change, "On 9 May 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered a stay on Jadhav's sentencing after India approached it to contest Pakistan's death penalty." to "On 18 May 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered a stay on Jadhav's sentencing after India approached it to contest Pakistan's death penalty." [2] Mfarazbaig ( talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
References
TripWire Please read the official MEA release where the India spokesperson clearly states "As to the question of his so-called fake identity or original Indian passport, we can only ascertain all this once we have consular access". This settles the claim that India has objected to the passport he has carried or atleast not agreed to it and is thus as of now a Pakistani claim. Link here( [3]). The word alleged has always existed and was removed recently by another editor in a so called "copy-edit". Thus, it was added back. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
It's surprising that the link you provided only says that the Indian authorities can only say something about his alias once they are given consular access. You are basing your argument on a vague point but are not ready to accept that the Indian media itself has unearthed that Yadev has been living inside India under the alias Hussain Patel, have also owned properties under that name and is also known to his neighbors with that name. Moreover, many Indian journalists have been questioning Indian authorities so as why did Yadav had 2 passports, which todate Indian officials hasn't given any worthwhile response. The only argument in the press release you provided (which in itself is highly unreliable source as it's the official version guven by the Indian govt) is that he was kidnapped from Iran and that they will comment further once they are given consular access to Yadav. I dont know how can you deny RS like the Indian media itself which has proved that Yadav did has a second name, owned properties in that name and lived in Mumbai under that name. I can quote numerous other RS saying the same thing, but only quoted the Indian sources as Pakistani sources can be charged with carrying /supporting the Pakistani version of he story. Surprisingly, it is the Indian RS that are saying that Yadev did has an alias of Hussain Patel. MEA merely refusing to comment on this cannot be taken as RS, especially when it hasn't categorically denied that the passport under his alias (Patel) didnt exit. Anyhow, I dont have anything more to say for now, so I rest my case.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The code name, claimed by Pakistan mentioned are incorrect. If one goes through the references provided, it becomes clear that the so called code name "Monkey" is invented just to rattle Indian counterparts and sensatise general opinion. This goes against factual and neutral nature of Wikipedia. Thus it needs to be removed. Aniruddha ( talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@ Anachronist: Why you are removing the sentence only because you find one word to be contrary to WP:NPOV? That's really subjective argument and I was expecting you to raise on talk page first. Whether it should be on lead or body, I had already told that you can move it anywhere you would like to. As of now, you have only removed the important content, leading me to ask if you really want the content or not? If you want it then how you would like to reword it. Sdmarathe ( talk) 05:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
The U.N had clearly shown concerns over Pakistan government “authorising military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences”. The U.N has been quoted here. I have provided a total of 4 highly reliable sources one of which is this :- https://m.timesofindia.com/india/un-report-slams-opaque-pak-military-courts-let-civil-courts-try-jadhav-like-cases-says-panel/articleshow/58689592.cms
You Winged Blades of Godric need to read the sources provided before removing anything. Adding The Truth ( talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Adding The Truth ( talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
authorising military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offencesand it's a part of many other critical observations.The rest of linkage to Kulbhushan's case is pure OR by Indian Media units, who are obviously biased to a certian extent.Mention iff reliable third-party-sources (not Indian or Pakistani) has criticized Pakistan's handling of the case, based on the report.or else ask for Dispute resolution. ∯WBG converse 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The UNITED NATIONS criticized the handling of civilian terror related cases by the Pakistan military courts. Is it not third-party and reliable enough? Just because you don't like Indian media and think it's OR doesn't mean they're wrong and make it such. There are plenty of Pakistan media citations provided throughout the article. How are they reliable then if Indian media isn't according to you?
If you're concerned about it being only in the lead and not the body, you are free to create a subsection for it.
I have told you plenty of times already, don't remove anything before any consensus here on the talk page. Adding The Truth ( talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Sam Sailor, I'm new here as you can tell by my profile. I was hoping someone jump in to give direction to this pointless discussion. Please make a comment on this issue. Adding The Truth ( talk) 16:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This section in the article doesn't seem NPOV since all the links belong to Pakistani news agencies which might provide doctored videos and audio clips. The confessions are exaggerated and written in more detail than needed. This need to be shorten up and tone needs to be changed. It looks like Pakistanis have hold on this article. ---zeeyanwiki discutez 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)