Talk:2016 Uri attack: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Article Images

Line 1:

~~{{talk header}}~~

~~{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=~~

{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=C}}▼

~~{{WikiProject India~~

~~|importance=mid~~

~~|class=C~~

~~|history=yes|history-importance=mid~~

~~|politics=yes~~

~~|defence=yes~~

~~|jandk=yes|jandk-importance=top|politics-importance=}}~~

~~{{WPMILHIST|Indian-task-force=yes|Pakistani=yes|class=C}}~~

~~{{WP Crime|class=C}}~~

{{WikiProject Death|class=C}}▼

~~{{WP Islam|Islam-and-Controversy=y|class=C}}~~

~~{{serial killer|class=C}}~~

{{WikiProject Terrorism|class=C}}▼

}}▼

▲{{WikiProject ~~Death~~banner shell|class=C}}|

▲{{WikiProject Pakistan|~~class~~importance=Cmid}}

{{WikiProject India|importance=mid|history=yes|history-importance=mid|politics=yes |jandk=yes|jandk-importance=top|politics-importance=mid}}

▲{{WikiProject Terrorism|~~class~~importance=Cmid}}

▲}}

==Meaningless edit war==

Line 23 ⟶ 12:

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. [[User:DinoBambinoNFS|DinoBambinoNFS]] ([[User talk:DinoBambinoNFS|talk]]) 10:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

: I think that is a misinterpretation of [[WP:TERRORIST]]. Whether the term is usable or not depends on the how widely reliable sources use the term. The US government has called it terrorism and [[Jaish-e-Mohammad]] has been recognized as a terrorist organisation by multiple governments. I am personally not convinced that this was an act of terrorism, rather it has been called an "undeclared war". However, for the time being, in the interest of avoiding unnecessary edit wars, if an editor uses the term "terrorist" I suggest we leave it alone. Likewise, Islamist is also perfectly fine given the history of the organization. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 10:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

: So now the US government is the authority on who is a terrorist? That's not an objective definition at all. The Syrian Government states that the Free Syrian Army are terrorists. Why doesn't Wikipedia call the FSA terrorists? — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.239.226.201|117.239.226.201]] ([[User talk:117.239.226.201#top|talk]]) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

:: You're right about the term "terrorists", I'll restore it. However, regarding "Islamist terrorism": Jaish-e-Mohammad is only suspected, it's role is not confirmed. But even if it was behind it, it cannot be termed an "Islamist terrorism" because the main purpose of such attacks is not an Islamist motive (which is the definition of Islamist terrorism), but rather the independence of Kashmir. I don't like to dispute over some words but we have to be accurate regarding terminology. [[User:DinoBambinoNFS|DinoBambinoNFS]] ([[User talk:DinoBambinoNFS|talk]]) 10:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Line 81 ⟶ 72:

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.[[User:Aumnamahashiva|Aumnamahashiva]] ([[User talk:Aumnamahashiva|talk]]) 23:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

:Plenty of reliable sources mention the unrest as the context of the attack (like [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37399969 BBC]). These types of things always mention the background and we should too.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 04:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

== Editing restrictions ==

Line 103 ⟶ 94:

:: There are 535 members in US congress. A introductory bill with 2 congressmen doesn't have any weight. Please go through [[WP:BALASP]]. If you are still not convinced, i shall take it to [[WP:NPOVN]] as final step. Thanks

[[User:Rugby9090|Rugby9090]] ([[User talk:Rugby9090|talk]]) 13:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

:::It is not the case that only official government reactions should be mentioned. Reactions from notable people from the international community should also be given space. [[User:Bharatiya29|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#FF9933;">Bharatiya</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Bharatiya29|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#138808;">29</~~font~~span>]] 14:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

:::The same applies to former Bangladeshi high commissioner's statement. [[User:Bharatiya29|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#FF9933;">Bharatiya</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Bharatiya29|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#138808;">29</~~font~~span>]] 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

:::: {{U|Rugby9090}}, You don't seem to understand the importance of introducing a bill in the US Congress. You should indeed go to [[WP:NPOVN]] instead of wasting everybody's time here. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 14:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Line 113 ⟶ 104:

[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] '''This matter is sent to [[WP:NPOVN]] <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2016_Uri_attack</ref>. Please avoid any further modifications till admins resolve it.''' — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rugby9090|Rugby9090]] ([[User talk:Rugby9090#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rugby9090|contribs]]) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

:Let me make it clear that I am in support of '''inclusion''' of former Bangladeshi high commissioner's statement. [[User:Bharatiya29|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#FF9933;">Bharatiya</~~font~~span>]][[User talk:Bharatiya29|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:#138808;">29</~~font~~span>]] 15:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

[[User:Bharatiya29]] you have recently added Armenia and Bahrain views on "2016 URI Attack" <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=prev&oldid=740506445</ref>. <ref>http://www.ibtimes.co.in/uri-attack-here-how-international-community-responded-694476</ref>. The reference you mentioned has no names, designation and date. Please provided valid references.

Line 139 ⟶ 130:

[[User:Rugby9090|Rugby9090]] ([[User talk:Rugby9090|talk]]) 22:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

::: I don't see any contradiction. Where is the contradiction? Where does it say ex envoy? When did it say it? -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 22:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

::::The Bangladeshi high-commission to India [http://www.bdhcdelhi.org/index.php/high-commissionn/high-commissioner does say] that Syed Muazzem Ali is the High Commissioner.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 05:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

== Removal of Pakistani military reaction ==

I added Pakistani military reaction, but it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740628279&oldid=740627881 reverted]. Why?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

== Kashmir unrest ==

Line 150 ⟶ 141:

Most reliable sources I read on the attack mention the Kashmir unrest, since the killing of Burhan Wani. Here's a few: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37399969 BBC News], [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/world/asia/17-indian-soldiers-killed-by-militants-in-kashmir.html?_r=0 New York Times], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/18/seventeen-indian-soldiers-and-four-militants-killed-in-kashmir-a/ The Telegraph], [http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-kashmir-20160918-snap-story.html LA Times], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/suspected-militants-attack-indian-army-base-in-kashmir/2016/09/17/23674c1a-7d4a-11e6-8064-c1ddc8a724bb_story.html Washington Post] etc. We should also mention this.

In fact, Spartacus, the user who reverted me, later on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740628279&oldid=740627881 added] "At the time of the attack, Kashmir was at the centre of a [[2016 Kashmir unrest|civil unrest]], during which 85 civilians had died in clashes with security forces." So its unclear what exactly Spartacus' point is.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

: I am not sure why a new talk section has been opened here whereas it was already being discussed above, and why you chose to make mainspace edits without achieving consensus first.

Line 170 ⟶ 161:

::You say "please use a reliable source like this one, not random cherry pickings from news reports". Do [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37399969 BBC News], [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/world/asia/17-indian-soldiers-killed-by-militants-in-kashmir.html?_r=0 New York Times], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/18/seventeen-indian-soldiers-and-four-militants-killed-in-kashmir-a/ The Telegraph], [http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-kashmir-20160918-snap-story.html LA Times], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/suspected-militants-attack-indian-army-base-in-kashmir/2016/09/17/23674c1a-7d4a-11e6-8064-c1ddc8a724bb_story.html Washington Post] not count as reliable sources?

::[[WP:NEWSORG]] says "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content". The statement that 80 people have been killed in Kashmir is factual. The statement that "The attack in Kashmir appears opportunely timed..." is an opinion. You are correct that Nawaz Sharif's planned address to UNGA is a fact. That has already been mentioned in the article. I support its inclusion.

::And finally, The Diplomat does seems like a reliable source, but it contains a lot of opinion like [http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-is-slipping-away-from-india/ this one] that accused India of "almost three decades of armed oppression against the civilian population" and "Sexual violence [by Indian soldiers] has been used as a channel to impose authority upon the female population". Both of those are opinion. It is our job to separate opinion from fact.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 21:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

::: There was a tacit consensus of some sort as {{U|Mar4d}} pared down his contribution and improved the sources. What is in the lead is more or less ok, even though it still needs improvement.

::: As for ''The Diplomat'', I said it is an RS {{tq|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.

::: You can counter RS with other RS of equal quality, but ''not using your own opinions''. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 23:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

:::: Let me put it in another way. A and B might be facts. But if you put them together as if there is a connection, you are doing [[WP:SYNTHESIS]], a form of [[WP:OR]]. Your Background section is [[WP:OR]]. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 23:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::I am not putting A and B together, they have been put together by NYT and BBC and other sources. Regarding the reliability of NYT and BBC, I've posted a message here: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Background_to_2016_Uri_attack]]. Let's see what others say about their reliability.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 23:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Line 183 ⟶ 174:

Please be aware that this article is subject to the editing restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir Conflict listed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016#India-Pakistan|here]]. In particular, maximum 1 revert, no aspersions, no reversions without discussion, and a civility restriction. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

: I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for posting this. I hope my edits didn't cross the line, but if they did [[User talk:Vice regent|let me know]].

: I see that at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740612872&oldid=740610897 one] of my edits (which added the reaction of the Pakistani military) was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740628279&oldid=740627881 reverted] without any explanation on the talk page. After the revert, I've [[Talk:2016_Uri_attack#Removal_of_Pakistani_military_reaction|asked about this on the talk page]]. So would that revert be a violation of the editing restrictions?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 15:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

::Technically, yes it is a violation. But let's consider this in effect going forward since the reminder was just posted. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

:::Ok, this happened once again. I just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740721740&oldid=740719955 added] some analysis by a former Pakistani general and within 15 minutes this was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740723599&oldid=740722561 deleted] without any discussion on the talk page.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 21:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

::::I've dropped a note on that editors page. You're welcome to reinstate your edit. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 22:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

::::...and this happened yet again!! I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740729391&oldid=740729065 added] something reported in a reliable source, within 7 minutes it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=next&oldid=740729391 reverted]. No discussion on the talk page regarding this particular edit. And this is the '''second''' revert by the same user in an hour ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740723599&oldid=740722561 first]). Whatever happened to [[WP:1RR]]?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']]

== Analysis ==

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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740721740&oldid=740719955 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) '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

=== Gen. Musharraf ===

Line 198 ⟶ 189:

::They were originally in the Analysis section and later moved into the Reaction section. I think they belong in the Analysis section.

::There's no rule that says "official positions issued by a government... can only be countered by the other government." Human Rights groups, journalists and other experts challenge statements given by officials all the time. Musharraf's opinions are also not "private", they were published by [[India Today]] and [[Channel 24 (Pakistan)]].

::Finally, while peer-reviewed sources are certainly reliable, [[Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources|there are]] other types of reliable sources too, including news articles. All reliable sources need not be peer-reviewed.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 23:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

::: Wikipedia can't possibly include everything published in every newspaper. We have to decide what is [[WP:DUE]]. What is DUE here are the official positions of the two governments, because it is a "diplomatic war" between them. When we report their positions, we don't acknowledge any of them to be either true or false. Only RS can do so. Your contribution basically tried to present Gen. Musharraf as if he were an RS, giving UNDUE weight. That should not be done. You can add a one liner counterpoint perhaps.

::: Note also that we don't say that the rifles or grenade launchers had any markings. We say "some items", the same words used by Lt. Gen. Ranbir Singh. But I probably still need to refine the text. I will double check with the source. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::: It is also a problem for us that Gen. Musharraf didn't explain how the Pakistani arms got into the hands of the militants. Without any such ''positive'' information, it is just argumentation and rhetoric, and Wikipedia is not the place for it. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::::You're right that we can't include everything. But Musharraf is a ''very'' notable source. He was the head of Pakistan's forces during the [[Kargil war]]. He was later the President of Pakistan. And I agree we can't present his views as true or false. And I didn't. I attributed his views to himself.

::::And WP:NPOV requires that we consider all viewpoints. Currently, there are no Pakistani viewpoints in the Analysis section even though the section talks a lot about Pakistan. WP:NPOV would require we give some coverage to Pakistan's views on the issue of whether the perpetrators were armed by Pakistan or not. While Musharraf is not a current Pakistani official, he would very well be considered an expert, albeit a biased one.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 01:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::::: {{ping|Vice regent}} {{ping|Kautilya3}} I don't see why [[Pervez Musharraf]]'s or for that matter any other notable person's views from Pakistan can't be included, if they have been covered in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] - that is the criteria. Musharraf satisfies the notability requirement and his views have also got coverage, so our criteria is met. If the article can include op-eds by Indian newspapers and attribute them, I do not see any contradiction on covering alternative views across the full spectrum, including in Pakistan. Also, given that the Indian press and government always blame Pakistan immediately after any incident inside their territory, it is a requirement per [[WP:NPOV]] to also cover the reaction encapsulated in Pakistan. There are evidently sources in either sides which have strong views about this. '''[[User:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">Mar4d</~~font~~span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">talk</~~font~~span>]]) 06:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::: No, the article can't include op-eds, unless they are by RS. If you find any, please feel free to delete them. I have in the past objected to including even statements by ministers who don't have jurisdiction for the subject, as {{U|DinoBambinoNFS}} can testify. Notability of the source is not grounds enough for inclusion. How the views relate to the subject at hand are the key. As far as I can, the General's statements are just fluff. Had he provided information about how the Pakistani arms got into the militants' hands, we would be quite happy to include it. (The Americans ''can'' explain how their arms got into the Taliban hands.)

:::::: Finally, let me point out that both of you are toying with the '''ethnicity claim restriction''' that has been doubly imposed on this page. There is no Wikipedia policy that allocates a certain amount of space to any particular country. Arguing that it should do so is an instance of [[WP:SOAPBOX]]. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 08:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::::The ethnicity claim restriction only applies to making claims about the ethnicity of users. It doesn't apply to making ethnic comments in the content of the article. So it is perfectly acceptable for us to call Musharraf a Pakistani. Or to say that Modi is an Indian. And [[WP:NPOV]] does require us to present ''all'' viewpoints fairly, including those viewpoints that believe Pakistan wasn't behind the attack.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 14:28, 23 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. [[User:DinoBambinoNFS|DinoBambinoNFS]] ([[User talk:DinoBambinoNFS|talk]]) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:If his reactions aren't noteworthy, why were they covered by [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uri-attack-pervez-musharraf-denies-terrorists-used-pakistani-weapons/1/769404.html India Today], [http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/musharraf-calls-bugti-a-terrorist-says-pak-not-involved-in-uri-attack/story-LdxSUdS1ITmrAGnU7asRAJ.html Hindustan Times], [https://arynews.tv/en/indian-state-actors-operating-balochistan-musharraf/ ARY News], [http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/pervez-musharraf-warns-of-counter-strike-as-india-weighs-response-to-pakistan-for-uri-attack_1931731.html Zee News] - and these are just the Indian media. Pakistani media covered him widely as well.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 14:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

*Did anyone else have any other thoughts on this matter?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 19:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

::Tens of thousands people have reacted, and hundreds have been covered by media. That doesn't make them relevant for this article. He holds no government post, neither is position holder of any other notable organisation. I don't think any Individual's point of view is notable enough. -- Pankaj Jain ''[[User:Capankajsmilyo|Capankajsmilyo]] ([[User talk:Capankajsmilyo|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Capankajsmilyo|contribs]] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])'' 20:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

:::Hundreds of individuals' views have not been covered by headlines in mainstream media. That's definitely an exaggeration, IMO.

:::Musharraf hasn't just received coverage, but he's received '''significant''' coverage. (For meaning of the term "significant", check out [[Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline]]). Several major Indian newspapers have dedicated entire articles to covering Musharraf's statements.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 02:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:Sorry to say the word '''hundreds''' is not an exaggeration.If you see in the Indian media ,you will be surprised to find that almost every living Chief of the Army Staff(COAS), Army commanders(GOC),Corps commanders,Political leaders at the national scene have commented explicitly on the issue.But by a general policy views by those people are only stated when they currently held important designation regarding the field of the article or is a famed expert in the matter!!As such he holds neither any government post, nor is a position holder of any other notable organisation related to the attacks. But as such Pakistani viewpoints are well sought in the article if it comes from designations including but not limited to their President,Prime Minister.Chief of Armed Staff etc.[[User:ARUNEEK|Aru@''baska'']][[User talk:ARUNEEK|❯❯❯ Vanguard]] 14:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

::The question is not if '''hundreds''' have commented. The question is if hundreds of people's views have '''made headlines''' in '''multiple newspapers'''. That's obviously not true, and if you disagree, maybe provide some sort of convincing evidence for it.

:::"by a general policy views by those people are only stated when they currently held important designation regarding the field of the article or is a famed expert in the matter". No, that's not wikipedia policy. If you think that's wikipedia policy, you need to back your claim up. Wikipedia policy instead states that "notable" implies '''significant''' coverage in '''multiple reliable sources''' ([[Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline]]).'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 15:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

*{{ping|Kautilya3}}, do you mind explaining [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741138019&oldid=741134512 this edit]. In it you quote Musharraf's 2010 statements. By 2010 Musharraf was neither president nor general. So apparently its ok for you to use Musharraf in the article, but not me?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 18:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:: You are comparing apples and oranges. I included information provided in a [[WP:SCHOLARSHIP|scholarly source]], as part of a reasoned analysis. I didn't cherry pick a TV interview out of hundreds that are available out there. That apart, we can assume that the statement I included is based on the information that Musharraf had during his long career as a general and president. The TV interview that you want to include is pure speculation. He hasn't even seen the evidence provided by the Indian government. On what basis can he offer an opinion on it? Finally, he said "weapons bearing Pakistani markings" can't be evidence.[http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uri-attack-pervez-musharraf-denies-terrorists-used-pakistani-weapons/1/769404.html]. Evidence of what? Whoever is talking about "weapons bearing Pakistani markings"? Can you point to where in our article we make such a reference? This is complete hogwash. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 19:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:::This "scholarly source" statements of yours are getting annoying. For the nth time, mainstream newspapers are considered [[WP:reliable source]]s. Are you saying that [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uri-attack-pervez-musharraf-denies-terrorists-used-pakistani-weapons/1/769404.html India Today], [http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/musharraf-calls-bugti-a-terrorist-says-pak-not-involved-in-uri-attack/story-LdxSUdS1ITmrAGnU7asRAJ.html Hindustan Times], [https://arynews.tv/en/indian-state-actors-operating-balochistan-musharraf/ ARY News] are not reliable sources? Can we agree that they are reliable sources?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 23:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:::: Newspapers are only reliable for ''news''. All it means is that Musharraf did indeed say, as far as we concerned, what he is purported to have said. That doesn't make the content of Musharraf's statements reliable.

:::: {{talkquote|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.<ref>{{citation |last=Rashid |first=Ahmed |title=Descent into Chaos: How the War Against Islamic Extremism is Being Lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=lMUE2SuQ-eMC |date=2012 |publisher=Penguin Books Limited |isbn=978-0-14-191909-6}}</ref>}}

Line 228 ⟶ 219:

::::::*Have Musharraf's views made the headlines of articles in [http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/uri-attack-pervez-musharraf-denies-terrorists-used-pakistani-weapons/1/769404.html India Today], [http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/musharraf-calls-bugti-a-terrorist-says-pak-not-involved-in-uri-attack/story-LdxSUdS1ITmrAGnU7asRAJ.html Hindustan Times], [https://arynews.tv/en/indian-state-actors-operating-balochistan-musharraf/ ARY News]?

::::::* Are India Today, Hindustan Times, and ARY News reliable sources?

::::::Please answer the above two questions. Thanks '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::: I see a few arguments contending above that his views should not be added because he's not in an "official" capacity. There is no Wikipedia policy, AFAIK, which states an article must only attribute views of those in official positions. That's not a requirement for [[WP:RS]], and Musharraf is very notable. None of the people quoted in [[2016 Uri attack#Media|this section]] are in the government, or arguably as important. Principally, Musharraf's views could be included in that section, given the concerns over 'official' vs 'unofficial' or the fact that Musharraf appeared in the media. '''[[User:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">Mar4d</~~font~~span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">talk</~~font~~span>]]) 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Line 235 ⟶ 226:

I've removed background as there's no RS sufficiently giving due weightage to the listed incident as background. -- Pankaj Jain ''[[User:Capankajsmilyo|Capankajsmilyo]] ([[User talk:Capankajsmilyo|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Capankajsmilyo|contribs]] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])'' 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:This was being discussed in [[Talk:2016_Uri_attack#Kashmir_unrest]].

:Do you not consider [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37399969 BBC News], [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/world/asia/17-indian-soldiers-killed-by-militants-in-kashmir.html?_r=0 New York Times], [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/18/seventeen-indian-soldiers-and-four-militants-killed-in-kashmir-a/ The Telegraph], [http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-kashmir-20160918-snap-story.html LA Times], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/suspected-militants-attack-indian-army-base-in-kashmir/2016/09/17/23674c1a-7d4a-11e6-8064-c1ddc8a724bb_story.html Washington Post] to be reliable sources? Because each of them talks about the Kashmir unrest as well as the civilians killed by Indian security forces prior to the attack.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 14:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

::I have now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=740865769&oldid=740853958 added] even more sources, 10 to be exact. They are: [[BBC News]], [[Washington Post]], [[Telegraph]], [[CBC News]], [[Al Jazeera]], [[LA Times]], [[Deutsche Welle]], [[Time (magazine)]], [[CBS News]], [[New York Times]]. Do you consider these to be reliable sources? Do you want even more sources than these?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 20:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:::I haven't seen the discussion when I made the edit. Nevertheless, what is the link between the two topics? Neither your sources nor the content in "Background" section explains the link. Just because the two happened at same time means they are linked? Did the Kashmiri civilians attacked Uri outpost? Please explain the link. If there's no link, at max, you can add it in See also section. -- Pankaj Jain ''[[User:Capankajsmilyo|Capankajsmilyo]] ([[User talk:Capankajsmilyo|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/Capankajsmilyo|contribs]] '''·''' [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])'' 04:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::There is currently no proven link between the attack and anything. India claims the attack came from Pakistan and was perpetrated by Jaish-e-Mohammed, while Pakistan says the attack was "a direct consequence of illegal Indian occupation and a long history of atrocities." Most reliable sources mention the Kashmir unrest, and the allegation that Pakistan may be behind the attack. We have to mention both. In the aftermath of the Uri attack, [http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/nawaz-sharifs-speech-at-unga-ignores-uri-terror-attack-glorifies-burhan-wani-india/ both Pakistan officials and Indian officials] have talked about Burhan Wani. Additionally, the article says:

:::::{{talkquote|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]|}}

:::::There is no proven link between the UNGA address and the attack. But we mention that too, cause its supported by a reliable source.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 15:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

:::::: You didn't understand the point Pankaj was making. He was saying that you can't have a "Background" section without a proven link. You have agreed that there is no proven link, but you have chosen to add the Background section despite objections.

:::::: I will look through your sources. Unless they suggest a link, I will be removing it again. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 15:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::But I never said, nor ever wrote in the article, that there is a proven link between the attack and the unrest! You are making a [[strawman]] argument.

::::::I have merely said that the background section provides information that is necessary for the reader to understand various aspects of the article. And I have found 10 [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] (see above) that give the unrest as necessary context for the attack. Ten reliable sources. That's a lot, man.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 19:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Background sections are pretty important, and found in most similar [[WP:good article]]s. See these articles for examples:

Line 250 ⟶ 241:

*[[Torreón massacre]] - This article is about a massacre of Chinese people in Mexico. Background talks about Chinese immigration to Mexico etc.

*[[Plitvice Lakes incident]] - armed clash between Croatia and Serb militia. Background talks about elections, tensions between Serbs and Croats, etc.

If you think the current background section is not well-written, please help improve it, instead of deleting it outright.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

:I beg to differ!!!Let's say clashes are occuring between two factions of people/military wing-A and B.(They can even be governments at war!!!). Now days after this, a bevy of people/troops of A conducts a massacre upon B.In these cases (state announced wars,ethnic clashes,rebellions from opressive state rule by it's subjects), a background section is more than justified in an encyclopedic entry.But terrorism does not fall under the purview of this definition.There cannot be any justification of "'''terrorism'''" .Further,for you kind appraisal, no reputed media outlet(even ones cited by you!!) has yet caught my eye clearly/explicitly stating that the attack was a fallout of the recent spate of turbulence in Jammu and Kashmir or the killng of Burhan Wani or the use of excessive military force .Instead some have went to say as far that the attack as an opportunistic strike by insurgent militia groups.In contrast many reputed media outlet clearly relates to the background between your mentioned [[Vukovar massacre]]. Lastly notwithstanding my words,there has been a background section in the article of the most ghastly terror attack in the world-"[[September_11_attacks]]",but it is based on some solid research-work of scholars in the field and obviously upon Bin Laden's "Letter to America" in November 2002.So in my opinion, it would be prudent to wait some more time before incorporating the background section in this article unless and until solid motives are established behind the cowardly attack rather than vague assumptions by some journalists .Prior to that one or two lines on the current situation in Kashmir is sufficient keeping in mind the gravity and focus of the article.[[User:ARUNEEK|Aru@''baska'']][[User talk:ARUNEEK|❯❯❯ Vanguard]] 14:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

::I (sorta) agree with you when you say "one or two lines on the current situation in Kashmir is sufficient". The background section shouldn't take up too much of the article. It is currently at 10 sentences. I can maybe reduce it to around 5 sentences, while still stating a similar amount of information.

::Additionally I'd like to point out there are many other pieces of info in the article that have not been proven: for example, the [[Jaish-e-Mohammed]] claim, the fact that the attack came right before Pakistan's UNGA address etc.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:::Yeah, you're true on the second point but preliminary investigations on part of Indian govt.identified the perpetrators to belong to [[Jaish-e-Mohammed]] group!!!Here is an [http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/uri-attack-jaish-suspects-in-hand-evidence-shown-to-envoy-3053717/ article] in support!!!But the background sections definitely needs to be trimmed!!!(Sorry for the late reply!!)[[User:ARUNEEK|Aru@''baska'']][[User talk:ARUNEEK|❯❯❯ Vanguard]] 11:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

::::I agree that the Jaish is accused by India to be connected to the attack. And we can mention them in the background section because of this. But Pakistan has also connected the attack to "unrest in Kashmir" - and this is mentioned by various reliable sources too. Neither of the two allegations have been proven.

::::Ok, I'll trim back some of the unsourced stuff from the background section.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 14:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

===Sources unrelated to Uri attack===

Kautilya recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741138019&oldid=741134512 added] stuff from a source that has nothing to do with the Uri attack. [https://www.amazon.ca/Kashmir-Unwritten-History-Christopher-Snedden/dp/935029897X 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 [http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/gurdaspur-pathankot-and-now-uri-what-are-indias-options/ this source], as it clearly talks about the Uri attack.)'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:And I'd also like to remind users should only say what's in the source provided, and not try and add their own information. [http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/gurdaspur-pathankot-and-now-uri-what-are-indias-options/ This source] does blame Jaish, but it doesn't even mention Lashkar, yet it was used for them. Also, all statements need to be sourced and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source]].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741874566&oldid=741873261 All the sources added here] are unrelated to Uri attack and therefore shouldn't be in the background. We've discussed this before, so I'm removing this right away.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 16:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

:The reason I don't want this in the article is because Hizbul is not connected to the Uri attack. No one has even accused Hizbul of being connected to the Uri attack or having anything to do with it. So this is not the place to talk about that. I wouldn't mind talking about Jaish in the background, because it has been accused. But make sure that the sources are always sources that are in connection to Uri, not some random stuff on the internet.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 16:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

:: You need to stop making up your own rules. There is no policy that says that sources used have to be on any particular topic. I accept that it is a good guide to follow so that we don't start putting all kinds of extraneous stuff. But it can't be made into a rule. By the same token that Hizbul is not connected to the Uri attack, Burhani Wani is also not connected to the Uri attack. But I recall that you wanted to add that. Secondly, there is no policy that says the statements have to be "sourced". They have to be [[WP:V|verifiable]], which is a slightly different concept. I think it is quite relevant that Burhan belonged to a terrorist organisation, while talking about him in an article on a ''terrorist attack''. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 22:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

:::Lol, I'm not making my own rules. I'm simply insisting that anything added must have been related to the topic by [[WP:Reliable sources]]. If a reliable sources didn't connect facts A and B, then you and I can't either. So simple. For example, Burhan also joined Hizbul because he was beaten up by Indian security forces. But no reliable sources connect that fact to the Uri attack, so we don't mention it.

:::"I think it is quite relevant that Burhan belonged to a terrorist organisation". That's exactly the problem. '''You''' think its relevant to the Uri attack that Burhan belonged to a terror organization. But does any RS think that fact is relevant?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''talk''']] 23:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

== False Acquisitions by Indian Media ==

Line 271 ⟶ 264:

List down at least 5 events / news that turned out to be false. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/178.255.44.53|178.255.44.53]] ([[User talk:178.255.44.53#top|talk]]) 19:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:Firstly it would be "accusations", not "acquisitions". Secondly, such a title is quite POV. A better section could be "Media reaction", listing how both Indian and Pakistani media have reacted to this incident.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 20:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

:[http://www.dw.com/en/how-indian-and-pakistani-media-are-covering-kashmir-unrest/a-19562791 This article] in the [[Deutsche Welle]], for example, seems accurate and balanced. It would be a good start to use information in it and incorporate it into wikipedia, respecting its principles.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 20:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Line 279 ⟶ 272:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741138019&oldid=741134512 This edit] seems to have duplicated the following content:

{{talkquote|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.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:Also, seeing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741141765&oldid=741141316 this summary], I'd like to point out that all events after the main event go into the aftermath section. See for example [[September_11_attacks#Aftermath]]. In fact, articles covering militant attacks tend not to have an "Analysis" section at all. We can, however, create an investigation section if you'd like.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

== Number of civilian deaths in the lede ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741082537&oldid=741079802 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.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

== By whom ==

Line 290 ⟶ 283:

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: [http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kashmir-attack-1.3767723 CBC News], [http://www.metronews.ca/news/world/2016/09/17/suspected-militants-attack-indian-army-base-in-kashmir.html MetroNews], [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-than-a-dozen-indian-soldiers-killed-in-kashmir-attack/ CBS News]. They are too many to list. Any suggestions as to how we can better word this?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

==Expanded Background section==

[Link to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&type=revision&diff=741162954&oldid=741159699 revert]]

: Regarding Kautilya's recent expansion of the background section, I found some [[WP:SYNTH]] which didn't belong on the article. This is particularly an issue, as we were just discussing a few threads up how the article should stick to the coverage of the incident. I think it's important to discuss those changes. '''[[User:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">Mar4d</~~font~~span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">talk</~~font~~span>]]) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

:: I don't think so. India's Home Minister has called Pakistan a "terrorist state". India called it a "state sponsor of terrorism" on the floor of the UN, and a bill has been introduced in the US Congress to the same effect. Why these allegations have been made is certainly in the frame, and my material comes from a solid scholarly source, including an acknowledgement from the former President of Pakistan.

Line 306 ⟶ 299:

::::I made a similar point [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Uri_attack&diff=741140449&oldid=741129041 above].

::::Above, Kautilya [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Uri_attack&diff=740978107&oldid=740976671 said] "I will look through your sources. Unless they suggest a link, I will be removing it again." Yet here Kautilya is arguing in favor of adding sources that make no link between their content and the Uri attack. (Do note that Kautilya has also added sources that do make a link to the Uri attack, like [http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/gurdaspur-pathankot-and-now-uri-what-are-indias-options/ this one]. I am totally in favor of keeping that in the article.)

::::Finally, the publisher of the above quote, [[Foundation for Defense of Democracies]], looks [[Foundation_for_Defense_of_Democracies#Criticism|controversial]]. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 00:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

::::: Hi Kautilya. The first problem with your expanded content is that your sources were not about this incident. Secondly, as {{ping|Vice regent}} pointed out, Wikipedia requires us to avoid synthesizing or misusing different sources to form interpretations, which is what you are doing. Please see [[WP:OR]]. If you use [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] pertaining to coverage of ''this'' subject, it should not be a problem mostly. Please also note that as the allegations against Pakistan are the Indian government's narrative, attribution of said views is extremely important per [[WP:NPOV]]. Thanks, '''[[User:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">Mar4d</~~font~~span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">talk</~~font~~span>]]) 07:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::* I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says the sources have to be about anything in particular. That seems to be a policy made up by you and Vice regent. The policy that should govern the Background section is [[WP:DUE]].

::::::* A "Background" section (or a "History" section), if there is to be one, can describe all the prior happenings that form the background to what is covered in the articles, as an ''aid to the reader to place this subject in context''. The DUE weight should be based on that.

Line 313 ⟶ 306:

::::::* My original position was that we do not yet know enough to decide what background to include. But things became clearer in the last few days, especially after the UN speeches.

::::::* Finally, your allegation of [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] is also misdirected, because it means {{tq|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. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, there are conclusions implied in your text. Anything that is in this article has the implicit assumption "this might be related to the Uri attack in some way". (If content has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Uri attack, it doesn't belong here). None of your sources come even close to implying that the United Jihad Council "might be related to the Uri attack in some way". By contrast, multiple sources note that the Uri attack came after months of unrest in Kashmir. And [http://thediplomat.com/2016/09/gurdaspur-pathankot-and-now-uri-what-are-indias-options/ your source] above notes that the Uri attack has come in, relatively quick succession, after Gurdaspur and Pathankot.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 14:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

== Reverted [[WP:OR]] ==

I reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&curid=51646658&diff=741192073&oldid=741162954 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. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

:You're right! The source says "Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh believes that Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the same group responsible for the strike earlier this year on the Pathankot Air Force base in Punjab, carried out the Uri strike. The Pathankot attack, along with the July 2015 attack on a police station in Gurdaspur, Punjab, highlights a growing frequency of high-profile fidayeen attacks against hard targets." It doesn't say "militant groups in Kashmir". Thanks for catching that. '''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 03:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

== Lihaas edits ==

Line 341 ⟶ 334:

:*Don't have an opinion either way on whether to have an "Analysis" section or "Investigation" section. But we should probably have only one. Or maybe we should have a "Perpetrators" section.

:*I agree with attribution to [[India Today]] for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=next&oldid=741269045 this edit]. Maybe its just a mistake.

:'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

::I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=741331617&oldid=741310259 reverted] your edit here. {{ping|Lihaas}} did make some good edits and you can't just revert everything he did cause you don't like some of his edits. Revert those of his edits that you don't like but keep those that you do like.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

::: I am afraid when you reinstate an edit, the [[WP:BURDEN]] for verifying it and cleaning it transfers to you. Please do so as soon as possible so that we can continue with developing the article, or self-revert. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

::::Except I mostly agree with Lihaas' edits. The parts that we both disagreed with, above, I fixed in subsequent edits. Like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=next&oldid=741376030 here].'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

*Pinging {{ping|Lihaas}} here, so he can offer some thoughts on his edits.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

== Alleged hoax ==

Line 354 ⟶ 347:

</ref> 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. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

:Here's the thing. I'm not so sure The Quint is a respectable source. Why wasn't this reported in mainstream newspapers? The other two sources you mentioned are also not very mainstream. And they only acknowledge the report, they don't actually say the Quint is correct. [[Times of India]] is mainstream and they have reported that the Indian army has denied the reports.

:Still I think we can retain this content under a section named "Disputed reports" or something. Because, at this point, we don't have enough [[WP:RS|reliable]] evidence to know if it happened.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:Black;">talk</~~font~~span>''']] 03:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

:: [[The Quint]] is described as an online "web magazine", and incorporates self-published content. To be considered sufficient as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], its information must be corroborated and [[WP:V|verified]]. As Vice regent said, no mainstream authoritative sources have backed the Quint's preposterous claim. And as you noted, the Indian Army has denied the article's content. So [[WP:SENSATION|sensationalist reporting]] is a no-no, and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. '''[[User:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">Mar4d</~~font~~span>]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|<~~font~~span ~~color~~style="color:green;">talk</~~font~~span>]]) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

::: I am afraid you are mixing good and bad arguments. ''The Quint'' is definitely RS. Its editorial team have respective pedigrees. ([[Raghav Bahl]] is the founder and former chairman of [[CNN-IBN]]). Quintillion, the parent company of ''The Quint'', now has a TV channel jointly with Bloomberg. Whether a magazine is published online or on paper makes no difference. By no definition of the world can it be called a "sensational" tabloid magazine.

::: The problem we have is that it is the ''only source'' that has reported this, and there is no confirmation available from anywhere, which may be understandable under the circumstances. I will relegate it to a footnote once the article is recovered from the current mess it is in.

Line 370 ⟶ 363:

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. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

*{{ping|RegentsPark}}: is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Uri_attack&diff=742058252&oldid=742057599 this comment] (below) a violation of the ethnic claim policy?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''talk''']] 22:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

**[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Uri_attack&diff=742057599&oldid=742044342 This] one too. I think it refers to me?'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''talk''']] 23:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

***The first one is [[WP:CANVASS|canvassing]]. The second is a clear violation. I'll check if the user has been notified of discretionary sanctions in this area. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 01:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

***:Apparently neither of the two editors have been notified of discretionary sanctions in this area. I've notified both, and also made them aware of the editing restrictions. If possible, post the discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of editors who edit these articles. Best if everyone knows about them. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

:::::I feel like no one will really listen to me because I'm actively editing this article and come into disagreements with many users. They'd probably listen to a third party more. Thanks for telling them.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''talk''']] 17:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

::::::Anyone can post the discretionary sanctions notice or make a user aware of restrictions. And you should post them if someone edits often enough in this area so that they are aware and have the choice to be careful with their words or not be careful with their words. --[[User:RegentsPark|regentspark]] ([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]]) 23:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

== Terror reaction ==

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 – [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 08:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

: I have removed the addition. Please see the comments above by {{ping|Vice regent}} we have already discussed to death [[WP:UNDUE]] additions. The comments of a former president [[Pervez Musharraf]] are being contested, so providing unrelated coverage of [[Hafiz Saeed]] (that too with a POV heading) is in any case a no-no. '''[[User:Mar4d|Mar4d]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|talk]]) 09:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

::It does not mean discussion from other user who is also belong to the same country and have same issue make it close let other users to join this discussion. This article is about a terrorist attack in India and the section is also belong to a surgical strike against terrorist and in-between a statement made by a terrorist is most important and he has mentioned about it in his dialogues. [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 12:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

::Am inviting some active Indian and other users to discuss on this matter. {{ping|VarunFEB2003|Krishna Chaitanya Velaga|Irrigator|Bill william compton}}. [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 12:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Mar4d}} your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&diff=742035674&oldid=742034993 this edit] also sound so biased so I think you should discuss with other users before reverting their edits. [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 12:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:::'''Tentative keep''' that's what I would suggest. Getting some [[WP:3O|3O]] response here from a editor from a good-enough user is my opinion. '''''[[User:VarunFEB2003|Varun]][[User talk:VarunFEB2003|FEB2003]]''''' 12:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:::: Where is the link between Hafiz Saeed and this article? You can't add every Tom, Dick and Harry. Please see the discussions above on [[WP:UNDUE]]. There is no consensus for unwarranted statements (from either side), so either way, this can't stay. '''[[User:Mar4d|Mar4d]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|talk]]) 13:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

::::: [[Hafiz Muhammad Saeed|Hafiz Saeed]] is the most wanted terrorist and a statement by him where he threatens in this situation is important and he included "surgical strike" and Pakistani army in his dialogues which are enough to include. This is happening same as other user disagree to add commander of the group [[Hizbul Mujahideen]] after [[Burhan Wani]]'s name. [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 13:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

::::::: You are again engaging in [[WP:OR]]. There is no link between Hafiz Saeed's opinion and this attack. Adding his comment is as irrelevant as adding the opinion of any other source in a partisan manner, which is what you are attempting to do. '''[[User:Mar4d|Mar4d]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|talk]]) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

{{U|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. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 14:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:: Yes, I did support Musharraf's inclusion. However, it was contested by you. It is in fact ''me'' who should be saying you can't have it both ways. '''[[User:Mar4d|Mar4d]]''' ([[User talk:Mar4d|talk]]) 14:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:::I don't mind moving this section to ''2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir'' unless Mar4d won't object again. [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 15:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

::::I too support the last view.Let's not burden the parent article!!![[User:ARUNEEK|Aru@''baska'']][[User talk:ARUNEEK|❯❯❯ Vanguard]] 15:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

:I don't mind very briefly mentioning Hafiz Saeed's view if we can find a reliable source that relates it to the Uri attack. I'm not sure if [http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/pakistan-surgical-strikes-border-loc-hafiz-saeed-terrorism-indian-army-3059019/ this source] is talking about the Sep 18 attack on Uri. (It talks about some attack that supposedly killed 177 or 20 Indian personnel. Both these numbers are different from 19 casualty figure that is widely accepted.)

:I've always maintained that we should let [[WP:RS]] decide what is relevant and what is not.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''talk''']] 23:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

== Request to avoid Edit war ==

I request all experienced user from India or Pakistan don't be a part of [[WP:EDITWAR|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 – [[User:GSS-1987|GSS]] ([[User talk:GSS-1987|talk]]) 13:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

== Perpetrators ==

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.'''[[User:Vice regent|VR]]''' [[User talk:Vice regent|'''talk''']] 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

== Connection? ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Uri_attack&type=revision&diff=825061838&oldid=822999086 This] seems mere publicity of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_Terror_Attack_2018 new article]. —[[User:TripWire|TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ]] [[User talk:TripWire|ʞlɐʇ]] 07:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

: It is a terrorist attack associated with the [[Kashmir conflict]]. Isn't that good enough?

: But also it was a ''fidayeen'' attack, carried out by JeM, the same organisation suspected to have carried out the present one.

: And, if it is publicity, so what? That is what "See also" entries provide. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 10:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

::Good try. But no, except from the fact that it was a terrorist attack, they doesnt qualify a connection. Next what? You'd say that as India has accused Pakistan for the attack, that's another similarity to establish a linkage between the two? Going by your understanding, each and every attack should be listed in every other (Indian) terror attack article? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_Terror_Attack_2018&diff=next&oldid=825060361 This box] is enough to establish the çonnection, for now.—[[User:TripWire|TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ]] [[User talk:TripWire|ʞlɐʇ]] 10:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

:::For your information, the see also links does not have to be directly related to the topic of the article. I recommend you read [[MOS:SEEALSO]]. —[[User:MBlaze Lightning|'''<big>MBL</big>''' ]][[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|'''Talk''']] 09:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

::::Anyway, I've added a bit of information to the lead of the [[Jammu Terror Attack 2018]] article, that the attack has been described as one of the worst since the 2016 Uri attack.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jammu_Terror_Attack_2018&diff=prev&oldid=825268640] Hopefully, that'll suffice to justify a see also link. —[[User:MBlaze Lightning|'''<big>MBL</big>''' ]][[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|'''Talk''']] 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

:::::MBlaze Lightning ''recommended me to read [[MOS:SEEALSO]]'', but himself didnt read [[MOS:NOTSEEALSO]] which says: {{tq|As a general rule, the "See also" section should {{em|not}} repeat links that appear in the article's body or its [[Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates|navigation boxes]].}} As the article already shows <code>Campaignbox India terrorism</code>, 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.—[[User:TripWire|TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ]] [[User talk:TripWire|ʞlɐʇ]] 09:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)