Talk:2016 Uri attack: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 20:

: 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? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;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)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: 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)