While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no reliable source citing the reference to the ideology of NSCN.
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Nagaland workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Nagaland or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The article seems is biased and seems to have sections with personal reflections. Thus tagged. prashanthns ( talk) 05:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have tried my best to present the neutral views. Your comment(s) on the updated articles will be very much appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pingmi (
talk •
contribs) 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Updates referring to the NSCN as a terrorist organization should be carefully phrased. The NSCN sees themselves as a rebel group, but India sees them as a terrorist outfit. The lead already says "On November 6, 2015 in response to an attack on an army convoy in Manipur India designated The NSCN (K) a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act", and I believe that is clear and fair. Any further mentions that state the NSCN is a "terrorist" organization as fact should be avoided. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently the Activities section describes a joint operation by NSCN-K and KYKL, but doesn't include any information about KYKL. Here is the current summary:
On 4 June 2015, NSCN-K ambushed an Indian Army convoy of 6 Dogra Regiment in Chandel district of Manipur and killed 18 Army jawans. [1] On 10 June India conducted surgical strikes against NSCN(K) militant groups camps along the Indo-Myanmar international border, and inflicted significant casualties. [2]
But here's how thehindu.com describes the strike unfolding:
Once on the ground, the contingent of the special forces split into two groups and headed for two camps being run by NSCN(K) and KYKL, who are believed to be responsible for the deadly ambush on June 4, they said.
Is there any reason why we should not mention KYKL? It appears as though they are also responsible, and if we read into the source article for the summary at 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar, it goes on to explain that KYKL were also involved under "Cross-border raid details" and in the list of "Commanders and leaders" in the left siderail.
I'm going to suggest we change both this article and the lead in the source article to this:
On 4 June 2015, NSCN-K and KYKL ambushed an Indian Army convoy of 6 Dogra Regiment in Chandel district of Manipur and killed 18 Army jawans. [1] On 10 June India conducted surgical strikes against militant camps for both groups along the Indo-Myanmar international border, and inflicted significant casualties. [2]
References
Although if anyone has an alternate suggestion or reasons why KYKL shouldn't be mentioned, I'm interested. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Elephanthunter: Did you even read my edit summary about WP:INDICSCRIPTS? Please be careful when you edit pages. If you are unclear about why it was removed, start a talk page discussion. This is getting disruptive now where you have no idea about policies but feel some editors are against your views and you revert them without reason. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 15:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
These people probably need to be advised that even if you are both a "nationalist" movement and a "socialist" movement that it is in their best interest NOT to refer to this as "National Socialism", which has a very different connotation than the one most likely intended. 72.106.155.46 ( talk) 00:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
the term doesn't have the same connotations in the far east due to the fact that they didn't experience nor witness the horrors of nazism like the west did. JackyTheChemosh ( talk) 20:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
References
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no reliable source citing the reference to the ideology of NSCN.
Note: {{ WP India}} Project Banner with Nagaland workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Nagaland or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag TALK2ME 10:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The article seems is biased and seems to have sections with personal reflections. Thus tagged. prashanthns ( talk) 05:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have tried my best to present the neutral views. Your comment(s) on the updated articles will be very much appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pingmi (
talk •
contribs) 12:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Updates referring to the NSCN as a terrorist organization should be carefully phrased. The NSCN sees themselves as a rebel group, but India sees them as a terrorist outfit. The lead already says "On November 6, 2015 in response to an attack on an army convoy in Manipur India designated The NSCN (K) a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act", and I believe that is clear and fair. Any further mentions that state the NSCN is a "terrorist" organization as fact should be avoided. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 23:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Currently the Activities section describes a joint operation by NSCN-K and KYKL, but doesn't include any information about KYKL. Here is the current summary:
On 4 June 2015, NSCN-K ambushed an Indian Army convoy of 6 Dogra Regiment in Chandel district of Manipur and killed 18 Army jawans. [1] On 10 June India conducted surgical strikes against NSCN(K) militant groups camps along the Indo-Myanmar international border, and inflicted significant casualties. [2]
But here's how thehindu.com describes the strike unfolding:
Once on the ground, the contingent of the special forces split into two groups and headed for two camps being run by NSCN(K) and KYKL, who are believed to be responsible for the deadly ambush on June 4, they said.
Is there any reason why we should not mention KYKL? It appears as though they are also responsible, and if we read into the source article for the summary at 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar, it goes on to explain that KYKL were also involved under "Cross-border raid details" and in the list of "Commanders and leaders" in the left siderail.
I'm going to suggest we change both this article and the lead in the source article to this:
On 4 June 2015, NSCN-K and KYKL ambushed an Indian Army convoy of 6 Dogra Regiment in Chandel district of Manipur and killed 18 Army jawans. [1] On 10 June India conducted surgical strikes against militant camps for both groups along the Indo-Myanmar international border, and inflicted significant casualties. [2]
References
Although if anyone has an alternate suggestion or reasons why KYKL shouldn't be mentioned, I'm interested. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 22:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Elephanthunter: Did you even read my edit summary about WP:INDICSCRIPTS? Please be careful when you edit pages. If you are unclear about why it was removed, start a talk page discussion. This is getting disruptive now where you have no idea about policies but feel some editors are against your views and you revert them without reason. Adamgerber80 ( talk) 15:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
These people probably need to be advised that even if you are both a "nationalist" movement and a "socialist" movement that it is in their best interest NOT to refer to this as "National Socialism", which has a very different connotation than the one most likely intended. 72.106.155.46 ( talk) 00:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
the term doesn't have the same connotations in the far east due to the fact that they didn't experience nor witness the horrors of nazism like the west did. JackyTheChemosh ( talk) 20:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
References