Jump to content

Talk:Indians in Afghanistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Please restore from Talk:Indians in Afghanistan/Temp. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan

Is pure coatrack and has no place in this article. TG please explain why you think it does, Darkness Shines (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to the scope of the article. It is notable enough to be cited by main stream media. And it has been put in the article in full attribution and along with denial unlike you do. There are no basis for removing the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is well sourced information concerning Indians and Indian activities within Afghanistan whether these efforts are benevolent or sinister in nature it must all be stated and it is written in a neutral manner so darkness need not panic 109.154.105.168 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks

This section has less mention of Indians in Afghanistan and more of Pakistan and ISI... needs a re write. Its current form seems like an attempt to just add content about Pakistan and the blames instead of the topic. The largest section of the "Indians in Afghanistan" article on Pakistan is what WP:COATRACK is since it has been mentioned at the deletion debate. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid to see that this has become more politicised than having actual meaningful content about the Indian diaspora. Most of the new information belongs to Afghanistan-India relations. If this article remains in its present state, I think I am going to change my vote into a delete soon. Mar4d (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indian nationals in Afghanistan have become the target of severe terrorist attack carried out by the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e Taiba against them. If any other nationality had been singled out for attacks in such a way, that would be mentioned in their respective article also. JCAla (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mard this is a opportunistic edit by user JCala I believe his tit for tat edits are filled with POV and have hardly any relevance to the article Pakistans claim was barely 2 sentences his retaliatory attitude is motivating his edits on the article rather than some honest concern for the topic 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting this article deleted is not the solution, removing all the contentious content added after the last good version and adding that after discussion is the right way to rescue it. I did that but I've been reverted. There's already an editwar going on here. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note the above IP was blocked as IP 109.150.60.235 for disruptive editing in the past and is likely acting as a sock. JCAla (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Go to SPI for that, don't simply add allegations here. Is 109 still blocked? If not, this IP would be a valid participant even if it is the same person as that since dynamic IPs are not socks. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
This is unbelievable, the same editors who are in favour of deleting it because of it being a 'coatrack' want this content added which is even more of the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d, the article now contains factually accurate information on

  • History - to which AshLin has added good content.
  • Afghan perceptions about Indian presence - which is new, valid for exactly this article.
  • Attacks on Indian nationals in Afghanistan - which was there before, but mispresented as coming out of society instead as factually accurate carried out by terrorist organizations (Haqqani and Lashkar-e Taiba).
  • Pakistani claims re Indian intelligence activity (and counter-claims) - which now has the counter-claim plus further elaboration by TopGun.

What is your problem? Does Foreign Policy not state, that Afghans perceive the role of Indian nationals as positive? Were the attacks on Indian nationals, the embassy and the guesthouse not committed by the Haqqani network and Laskar-e Taiba? What is your problem? JCAla (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in case you tried to imply anything by posting a link to what I wrote on NorthAmerica's talk, note that NorthAmerica's "vote" and statement on the AfD predate my writing on his talk in which I explained that the nomination for deletion came before the rewrite and thus the current version which he says needs to be rescued. JCAla (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know how articles are rescued? By fixing the current version. The only neutral comment we have here for a version is one from Magog on the initial version. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have two uninvolved editors commenting on the AfD, stating that the current version is well-sourced and explaining notable issues. JCAla (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun, any on-content remarks from you? JCAla (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was on content, you need to self revert and add that content after a consensus, most of it is coatrack and needs to be removed. I did much effort trying to keep AshLin's edits and the infobox image and to remove the content which you've simply reverted instead of discussing. I did not invoke BRD to edit war (see that it was my only revert and that I also removed my own additions). --lTopGunl (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on "Indians in Afghanistan". Is it not accurate that

  • Indian nationals and targets were singled out for terrorist attacks?
  • That the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e Taiba have been accused of carrying out the attacks?

To quote the neutral and uninvolved User:Dream Focus, "Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan." Has anything not been sourced reliably? What is your problem? JCAla (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "Indians in Afghanistan" at google.com and see what issues are being addressed. JCAla (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Indians being attacked in Afghanistan is one thing (even still which would be just a piece of trivia and of not much weight more than a mention), but then adding all the blames about Pakistan and ISI seems like a continuation of addition here from the content which you couldn't get a consensus to put in Taliban article. The recent content is pretty much full of NPOV issues. You've added that Haqqani and Lashkar e Taiba has done so and so and is 'supported' by Pakistan, while Pakistan (and Haqqani too) has strongly denied their connection. So you are just adding blatant POV here. This is called POV pushing. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any other comments by others to keep the content or any consensus with JCAla in the discussion (atleast yet) which would default a remove... this content should be removed until a consensus is achieved. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my sentiments. This article is supposed to be about Indian expatriates living in Afghanistan and their history, not about foreign relations. Most of that information should be in Afghanistan-India relations or Afghanistan-Pakistan relations or the Lashkar-e-Taiba/Haqqani network articles. Mar4d (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even for that this information never got its better form. Purely one sided even if I see it from an outside point of view. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The section claims to discuss Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks but your edit reversal planned impacts unconnected areas about role of Indians in Afghanistan. In absence of specific proposal narrowly addressing the issue "Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks", a wider application of edit reversal suggests to me of possible POV. Disagree on that basis. Specify your exact change proposed for the issue headlined in the section heading so that that may be considered. AshLin (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is not mine to 'remove' the content, rather this was about whether to keep the content since it was new addition. There's been no consensus so far on that. I included in my descriptions on why I was removing the content. The removal itself means that I object specifically to the content I chose to remove and is self explanatory. The WP:BURDEN is on the inclusion side here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, why is there a picture of the Afghan parliament in the infobox? This a gross misuse and misrepresentation of the {{Infobox ethnic group}} template. Anyone who's worked on diaspora articles before will agree that picture is in the wrong place. As I've said before, this article is really tilting more towards diplomatic relations rather than meaningful content about the history of Indians in Afghanistan. Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JC's addition made the article less about the diaspora and more about politics. This is not the right article for that. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure: Since I'm likely to get reverted as before for removing the additions which have no consensus (as apparent in this section) - should I request for a formal closure or the editors in support of the content want to take this to RFC/DRN/NPOVN? --lTopGunl (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A "formal closure" for a normal section (that has been there for only nine days) of a talk page? No. JCAla (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since I see no consensus here and it is done in such cases but you can surely take this further. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary:

As there has been a parallel discussion on the article (with the additions) I will bring over what was said and done by editors after the rewrite (with the additions)

If TopGun and Mar4d have an issue with the additions, I propose we rather discuss the wording about Pakistani involvment rather than removing 10,000 bytes of reliably sourced, notable content (which also effected other well-sourced and notable parts of the article) on which a consensus of editors can reasonably be assumed as outlined in the above summary. JCAla (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that is not the summary of this discussion or a parallel discussion and you've chosen the phrases of your choice not giving even an mention to the opposing editors. Your additions are disputed. The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner we can proceed. I'll propose that you present your proposal here and I'll add objections. Then we can either choose to take that to DRN or call an RFC which ever appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • JCAla, restoring content of your choice is not going to help here... there's no way you are going to get the content in by simply ramming it into the article. Just to prove that I don't debate only when the article is on my preferred version, I've not reverted your previous edits from the article during your block. Attempts should be made to discuss the content here. Regardless of whether the arbitration is accepted or not, since that would not solve the content dispute anyway, a good Idea would be to start doing that step by step here... which ever parts can not get consensus can be listed together and taken further. To start with, I also have concerns about the heading. I think both 'alleged' and 'support' should be removed from the heading and instead a neutral, non implying, topic oriented heading should be used without mentioning whether the issue is an allegation or a fact since it would be disputed ie. "Intelligence activity and cross border insurgency". If you object to that you can give your own suggestion so that we can move on to the next issue (or create subsections if you want to do it simultaneously). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on your editing behavior. On content, my proposal is simply "Alleged intelligence activities" as the supposed intelligence activities have only been alleged by Pakistan while having been rejected by other countries such as Afghanistan, India and the United States. The proposal also includes all issues addressed in the section. JCAla (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The headings are impartial to sides... even more than the content itself. Adding 'alleged' or on the contrary 'actually supported' or 'supported' etc will make it long and implying. It can be easy to resolve how to go about headings - making them short as possible will help. The current one I suggested merely states what the content is about instead of saying who alleges or whether it is true or incorrect. If you want to remove the insurgency part simply "Intelligence activities" instead of "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Actual intelligence activities" will be neutral. About the rest of the content... we can start with some attribution and balancing the statements in equal weight. As for section about attacks on Indian embassy or Indians... that should have brief mention in the article since the scope of this article is much broader - and then Pakistan's links to the organizations mentioned are completely misplaced... they don't belong to this article rather to the articles of those organizations where it should be neutrally presented. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you have "intelligence activities" you are implying they are taking place. But these are only "alleged intelligence activities". If the "intelligence activities" were a majority view, then I'd agree with leaving "alleged" out, but it's only being alleged by Pakistan. JCAla (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligence activities" alone is a mention of the topic being discussed under the heading and does not give any implication... Using "Alleged intelligence activities" is as bad as "Supported intelligence activities". If you still disagree we can move on to try to resolve the next edits and treat this later with some form of resolution with the rest. The terror attacks as I said are not for this article. They are talking more about Pakistan and those organizations than Indians in Afghanistan... this is WP:COATRACK. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really need to take the section heading to a noticeboard or RfC? We both know well that it is "alleged" when only one coutry alleges something and many others deny the allegation. The terrorist attacks are exactly for this article 1) search for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google (notability) and 2) everything is reliably sourced (verified) and 3) only main themes are presented (what happpened? when did it happen? who was behind it?). JCAla (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this will not go anywhere like this since you are not seeing things from my perspective. My stance at the moment is headings are impartial to implication of both allegation or actual support as this is controvertial... I there's no agreement on the other issues too. To save us both time... how about you list your objections here in a list form.. I'll add mine right below them and then we can take it to dispute resolution with all involved editors above? --lTopGunl (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is the step to be taken here. What are the issues to be discussed?

  1. "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities"
  2. "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"
  3. Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan?

What else? JCAla (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be posting a list here in time. On a sidenote, I did not say or endorse the use of word "terrorist" in the heading so don't quote me as so. In the talk page discussion I will specifically place agreed content to be added in either italics or inverted commas and/or mention so with it. Also you need to self revert your last edit to keep it fair and so as not to edit war. In case you left out my second last edit's summary.. I pointed out that I objected to those edits but you continued to put those back into the article. At this point, this is likely to get us both blocked in my opinion and the better and constructive way is to take it all to dispute reaolution along with this. I reverted the image (and I remember mentioning that) on the basis that it did not properly represent the scope of the article and at the very best be placed in the sections some where though I don't endorse that either. You can put this and the other content I reverted to your list as well if you want (and yes I reverted all the edits on purpose... I objected to them - not by mistake while reverting your edit where you quoted me - I had reverted them once before. Lets not editwar). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the objections I have on the content:

  1. "Attacks on Indians" section is mostly irrelevant and about blames on ISI which is WP:COATRACK.
  2. Content from "Attacks on Indians" is covered in lede while the actual claimed purpose of India's presence in Afghanistan by Pakistan which is a matter of contention among the nations is not covered.
  3. Correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" section should be "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents" which is impartial to allegation or support rather a mention.

I've also made a minor non dispute related adjustment so that the NATO report is not give the undue emphasis of conclusion. This is well covered in the actual article which is a GA and consensus there actually calls this addition as recentism as of yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased some parts, because they were too close to the sources. On the content:
  1. The "Attacks on Indians" section is very relevant. These attacks constitute one major topic with regards to the issue of "Indians in Afghanistan". You can see this when searching for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google. You can see it in articles about "Indians in Afghanistan". Time Magazine i. e. covered the issue extensively and wrote among other things: "Indian doctors were killed in February 2010 bombings at two guesthouses in Kabul that were widely attributed to insurgents working at the behest of Pakistan."
  2. Here you are following Pakistan's narrative. "The actual claimed purpose of India's presence in Afghanistan" ... claimed by who? Only Pakistan. But I think we can work out a sentence about the allegation and the denial for the lead.
  3. The correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" should be "Alleged intelligence activity" as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban. Also the title is too long otherwise and "alleged intelligence activity" already says it all.

JCAla (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your claim of no military presence which is a disputed fact. Do not reinsert it. Your google search is WP:OR which you performed and is not stated in a reliable source. Also I've explained my position about the heading. Simply "Intelligence activity" is an impartial heading. There are also major issues with the lede where you have added the attack on Indians which is WP:COATRACK and excluded the claims on their intelligence activities in Afghanistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Restored and sourced. Who disputes it as a fact? And were is your WP:RS for the claim? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the RS with a whole section about it. This fact is disputed... do not escalate the already disputed content by restoring it. This is not about just the presence of references. The content is contentious and should only be put in WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Really? Were? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was already sourced with the Time Magazine which wrote: "India does not have troops in Afghanistan". JCAla (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed TG meant he had written and sourced a section on this he actually meant it. Hence the Reall? Were? As I see no such section on talk or article. Who removed the Time ref? It had no ref when I restored it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There it was. Not right after the sentence, but at the end of the paragraph. :) JCAla (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a separate section about intelligence activity and support for insurgents disputing this very sentence and this can not be stated as a simple 'no'. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for insurgents and intelligence gathering are not "having troops in country" You are conflating the two. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say troops. I said military presence... that includes intelligence. Also, I think the consulates do have military presence... read in the news... but till I get that citation I'll stick the above argument. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intel guys are not military, I do not think embassy guards can really count as a military presence. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources point to RA&W as well as armed support to insurgents... this is clearly shouting military. Anyway... I'll rather you take this discussion seriously instead of counting the security guards or not participate at all. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RAW is not military. You mentioned the embassy as having military on them, so please do not take that tone. There are no sources are there? Find one which says India has a military presence in country. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one citation [2] for the disputed military presence. There are others present in the article. And RAW does amount to military presence. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That cite says RAW are training Baloch's It does not say there is a military presence in country, again you are using WP:OR to push you views. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting:
"Are allegations of India placing troops in Afghanistan correct?
India is gradually increasing the number of its paramilitary personnel in Afghanistan. It is stationing them there on the pretext of providing security and protection to the Border Roads Organisation, which is constructing the Zaranj-Dilaram road, and its consulates. From a few personnel, the strength of Indian troops has reached almost that of a company size force and even includes Black Cat Commandos."
--lTopGunl (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
you just can't stop with the OR can you? Paramilitary personnel are not the army, it is also opinion and unproven. Pakistan keep saying this but have yet to actually provide proof. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you read the word troops other than paramilitary? If you call quoted text with exact wording as OR, you are incapable of a discussion. Pakistan and India both are claiming proof for this purpose.. stating any version as a fact is completely inconsistent to the section about intelligence activities and insurgent support, a blatant WP:POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LMFAO, read it in the correct context of the quote, he is clearly alleging paramilitary forces, not Indian armed forces. Give it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, let's use paramilitary troops instead of just "troops". Mar4d (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quotation mentions both. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, TG wishes to use this source to rebut the claim that there are no Indian armed forces in country. By all means this allegation should be in the article though. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a statement that India has no military presence in Afghanistan and is stated as fact. AshLin and DS have removed the 'dubious' tags from it. This is clearly disputed and can not be stated as a simple fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged discussion fork sections. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India has no military presence in Afghanistan. Military presence implies a base, deployed units, a force designation, a mission, a mandate, geostrategic agreements between the nations - at least some of these, if not all. None of these are present. Military presence does not mean embassy military staff, paramilitary troops, civilian intelligence officials or defense contractors, as has been tried to represent. A search in Google fails to find a single mention of Indian army military presence in Afghanistan. A large number of articles, in fact debate India's wisdom of keeping out.

Unable to find proper references, User:Top Gun has placed "dubious", "inconsistent" tags. Without any cited proof, (which would kill this argument one way or another), or credible grounds, Top Gun insists there is a dispute. He provides no worthwhile grounds for this. Yet, he places these tags to create a suspicion.

I have reverted his POV placement of tags.

AshLin (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read talkpage more than the article you would see that I'm explaining it in a section above. Simply saying there's not even a dispute when we have a whole section on it is WP:MPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is six years old and is a claim by a Pakistani politician. Find a neutral recent reference which clearly shows Indian military presence and not by inference. AshLin (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Indian troops in Afghanistan. Security guards at embassies do not count as military presence, otherwise we could say "Egypt has a military presence in Israel" or "The United States has a military presence in China" since every country employs paramilitary guards as security for their embassies. And actually the single allegation by a Pakistani politician (while all reliable sources state "India has no troops in Afghanistan") could be counted as fringe science here on wikipedia in this regard. JCAla (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation states the opposite and is one of the citations present in the article. It is also time frame independent so I don't need to find a news from today. Infact the source is clearly stating that the number of troops are increasing. If you don't agree... there's a dispute. But it is strange that you don't even acknowledge that. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me with a secondary reliable source that explicitly states: "India has a military presence in Afghanistan." What you provided is the interview allegation by an advisor to ex-Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf. We have the same situation as on the Taliban talk, you are putting equal weight on 1) the majority position among reliable sources and 2) Pakistani allegations/denial constituting a minority position. 1) explicitly states "India has no troops in Afghanistan" but 2) alleges India has deployed too many security guards which is a secret conspiracy to create a military presence. JCAla (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No this is different from that. Infact you completely misunderstood that dispute till my last comment. Anyway, what I'm saying is this is a disputed fact. That allegation is a proof of it. More citations state Pakistan has undeniable evidence. That fact that it has been shared or not is not being disputed and can even be mentioned if a source says with attribution to the party. But again... you are simply stating the claim of no military presence as a fact. 1) This statement should be made in the section about that matter so that it is in context and then it should be attributed in balance with other claims. This is currently even inconsistent with the article itself. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the "more citations" please? JCAla (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are shared in the article. But I guess its time we take this further. Were there any other issues to be mentioned before we take this to dispute resolution? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged (by Pakistan) "intelligence launching pads" is not a military presence. Otherwise, I assume, you wouldn't be opposed if I added "Pakistan has a military presence in Afghanistan." to appropriate articles. JCAla (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did give you a citation for allegation precisely saying troops. And I'm not asking here to say India has military presence as a fact either, but to say the opposite is controversial as well and should not be stated as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I said to you that a single allegation by an aide to Pakistan's military ruler is fringe science when all reliable sources write "India has no troops in Afghanistan." JCAla (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Foreign Policy

Why on earth is this written this way? Is there some reason to doubt the polls? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Background Information

See also: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan § Opening Statements

This is a community discussion on several content issues about the article, "Indians in Afghanistan". This discussion will be open for a period of 30 days to garner a consensus about each individiual issue. Members of the community are invited to comment on the proposals, giving reasons as to why they support their preferred proposal. This discussion is not a vote, and as per all discussions, comments will be weighed based on strength of argument. If you have any questions, leave a message on my talk page. I am only a faciliator, I am not involved in this dispute. Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Everyone who has chosen to comment in this part of the RFC acknowledges that the title of a section must reflect WP:NPOV. The heart of the matter, however, concerns which title is, concretely, neutral. I have examined the various rationales provided to support the diverse !votes – and discounted those !votes whose rationale was a mere placeholder – and I find that the consensus among the editors, here, is that Alleged intelligence activities is the best option, in that it contains the most neutral wording. To quote Czarkoff, who expresses this idea in a particularly eloquent manner, the "Intelligence activities" heading is only appropriate for undisputable intelligence activities, as it sounds as a statement of a known fact. Disclaimer: during this discussion RegentsPark questioned whether the article should include such a section at all; the issue was discussed, but no consensus is yet apparent. My closure, here, should not be construed as an endorsement of the inclusion of the section. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which section heading name should be used to describe intelligence activities?

  • Option 1: Alleged intelligence activities
  • Option 2: Intelligence activities
  • Option 3: Intelligence activity and support for insurgents
  • Option 2: Headings should be impartial to any POV. The WP:NPOV standard for the headings should be especially higher than the text. We should not be judgmental when using headings. "Intelligence activities" is a simple mention of what the section contains, while option one and three both are implying one point of view or the other. If the support for insurgents has to be mentioned in the heading it can be stated in another NPOV form like "Intelligence activity and insurgency". --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: There are no proof of these alleged activities. Only Pakistan has made the mnad have yet to provide any actual proof. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: this issue is too current for a definite wording. I would also note that using definite terms about the claims, which didn't gain any support by others then their source, would be a breach of WP:NPOV policy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the point, the heading should not imply whether it is an allegation or an actual support (the text has balanced arguments), rather just give a title to what the section is talking about. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See, the biased titles would be "Intelligence activities" and "False accusations of intelligence activities". "Alleged intelligence activities" is exactly the most neutral title possible. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "False accusations of intelligence activities" or "Supported intelligence activities" would actually both the biases from both sides, "Intelligence activities" alone does not specify whether it is an accusation or a fact, just a topic... that's what I meant. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "In a country where there are so many issues and countries of teh world are reducing its presence India has something like 26 counsulates? Why does no one think? Has the world become so media struck that they have no common sense of their own? If India wants to help as a friend why not take the 3 million Afghan refugees lying in Pakistan and clothe and feed them. Pakistan would be glad to hand them all over."
    As I see it, the "Intelligence activities" heading is only appropriate for undisputable intelligence activities, as it sounds as a statement of a known fact. The "Alleged intelligence activities" heading instead informs of the allegation but doesn't imply factual judgment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see why this section is included in the article at all. The article is about Indians in Afghanistan, presumably that refers to ethnic Indians living there. It is not about "India and Afghanistan". Since I haven't been involved in any of these discussions, clarification would be appreciated. --regentspark (comment) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is because it is a notable and contentious accusation made by Pakistan repeatedly over time on the Indians living in Afghanistan (either working in construction work or otherwise) for such activities. India has denied this every time and this has become a point of contention between the nations... eventually affecting the politics of region. This is notable enough for the inclusion. The neutrality of section heading is the dispute here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that I think about it, RegentsPark is absolutely right! The whole section belongs to the India-Afghanistan article. Not to this article. JCAla (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Regentspark & JCAla's suggestion. I suggest this issue first be discussed regarding applicability to this article and in that I support the removal of this section from here & move it to India-Afghanistan relations and rename it as "Alleged intelligence activities". AshLin (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is completely in regard to Indians in Afghanistan. In that article it will have a different approach but surely should be mentioned. As far as this is concerned, it is completely notable and relevant here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. If ethnic group X is singled out to be attacked in country Y, then that's information about X in Y that should be included. However, if an occasional member of X turns out to be an intelligence agent, then I don't see why we need to discuss this at all in an article about X in Y. As an example, we don't go about including a section on Israeli Intelligence activities in the American Jews article just because a couple of Jewish Americans have been spies for Israel. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As lined out by AshLin, disagree with TopGun. JCAla (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we are discussing if the section even has a place in this article. JCAla (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect, it was a clarification asked by regentspark. There's even enough support separately for it to be in the lede. This dispute is just about the section header. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attacks on Indians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The issue editors were asked to comment on here was composite. First, they were asked whether the article should include a section regarding these attacks; the unanimous reply was that it should. One editor in particular, however, argued that such a section should be pruned, in keeping with WP:COATRACK, but this opinion has not garnered much traction. The second part of the problem regarded the title of the section. Again, I feel I have to point out that when an admin closes a discussion, he must avoid just counting heads, but, rather, he should assess the weight of the various rationales, to determine which ones are more in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. In this case, many of the editors supporting the Attacks on Indians option have pointed to Wikipedia's manual of style, namely to WP:TERRORIST, which supports their position and none of the users supporting the other title have countered this argument, merely holding, in a generic fashion, that reliable sources refer to these attacks as acts of terrorism. The text of the section will certainly clarify that these attacks were perpetrated by terrorists, but the use in the section title of such value-laden words is discouraged – and would also probably run afoul of WP:NPOV. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article or the lede mention terror attacks? If so, which section heading name should be used to describe terrorist attacks?

  • Option 1: Terrorist attacks against Indians
  • Option 2: Attacks on Indians
  • Option 2 (and remove WP:COATRACK): Headings should not be implying a point of view, WP:TERRORIST clears this up pretty much even for the usage in the text. Also "Attacks on Indians" fairly covers what will be included in side the section. This was also taken to WP:NPOVN#Jaish-e-Mohammed by Darkness Shines in another instance where it was clarified to him by uninvolved users that using words like terrorists and the kind has POV issues. As for as the content in the section is concerned, it is a complete WP:COATRACK at the moment. The article is about Indians in Afghanistan and that whole section is about terrorism accusations on Pakistan and its intelligence agency, ISI. After some mentions on attacks the content goes into accusing how ISI supports terrorists. Wikipedia should not and can not state such accusations as a fact (just like the Indian military presence and its denials) and not to mention they don't belong to this article. The fact that Indians in Afghanistan are facing attacks by militants is notable, yes, but that should get a mention on its own accord even a bare one time mention that these are blamed on ISI (with attribution and denial inline) is acceptable. If that section is to stay it should only focus on the events of those attacks. Also, this content (in the current condition) belongs no where near the lede since it is spilling the WP:COATRACK there too. If corrected as per my suggestions above, a bare mention could be made in the lede that Indians in Afghanistan are facing such attacks by different organizations. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 Sources say that terrorists have attacked Indians working in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, and remove all occurrences of "terrorist" (with exception of direct quotations): I would actually amend the WP:WEASEL with a word "terrorist". This word has no valid use pattern at all. It appears this is already done. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just saw the section on this, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#WP:TERRORIST, where suggestions for the opposite are being made. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: The attacks, explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians, have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries. And yes, obviously the lede should mention that attacks against Indians have been carried out and by whom. The "Attacks on Indians" section is very relevant. These attacks constitute one major topic with regards to the issue of "Indians in Afghanistan". You can see this when searching for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google. You can see it in articles about "Indians in Afghanistan". Time Magazine i. e. covered the issue extensively. To mention who carried out the attacks is relevant information for the reader. Further several editors have previously reached a consensus on that information being very relevant. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, definitely: Wikipedia does not have the distinction of deciding who is and who isn't a terrorist, and I've raised this point on many occasions before. WP:WEASEL clearly applies here, and there is also a clear policy at WP:TERRORIST which states that value-laden labels should be avoided - and that whenever they are used, in-text attribution is required (in this case, who calls them a terrorist?). A title with this value-laden label would not conform to WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: I agree that 'terrorist' is against MOS prescriptions. The text of the section can easily make it clear whether terrorists are involved or not. --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you suggest about the content itself which is going in to allegations which are disputed themselves by the accused? Don't think that is what this article is about. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean, should an attack be labeled as "terrorist attack" in the text, then the answer is that it depends on what reliable sources call it. If reliable sources are in agreement that a particular attack is a terrorist attack, then we should call it a terrorist attack. If there is disagreement amongst reliable sources, then we should indicate that it is unclear whether an attack was a terrorist attack or not. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I didn't provide context assuming you would have read the content (or my comment on top). I was referring to the allegations about the attacks. After referring to them as terrorism, the article is describing how those attacks are related (or accused) to Pakistan and it's intelligence (ISI) etc. That, I meant, was WP:COATRACK as this article is not about that and a mention of attack itself would be enough (see my comment above) because Indians in Afghanistan are not blamed of those or involved in the background that is being given, given that this background itself is a disputed point of contention. See that section mentions more of the allegations that the events of attacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're saying. Imo, the second para is mostly unnecessary since there is a separate article on the 2008 Indian embassy bombing. At best, a one sentence statement about the involvement of LeT and ISI (assuming that it is reliably sourced that this is a dominant view) may be appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Attacks on Indians seems more generic in this case. Not necessary that it needs to be by a terrorist. Could also be an insurgent. The two are different. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, the two are different. These were terrorist attacks since they targeted civilians in one example Indian doctors residing in a guest house. JCAla (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how can you say these were not criminal acts? Reliable sources do not agree on a single definition of "Terrorist" nor do governments. We have a specific policy for not using this word, you need to change that on the policy talk page instead of going against it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between Terrorist, Criminal and Insurgent attacks right? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Terrorist attacks are meant to cause terror in non-combatants to achieve a certain political, ideological or religious goal. Generally, terrorist attacks are also criminal. However, if you simply say criminal attack that generally does not bare the connotation of "terrorism" as it is more often associated with non-political crimes i. e. for self-enrichment. "Insurgent" is a broad term. Someone can be an insurgent without being a terrorist. As an example there could be an insurgency against NATO without the attacks that are targeting non-combatants to cause terror. Such attacks would be the spraying of acids into the faces of girls to make them stop going to school (for ideological-political reasons) or the terrorist attacks against Indian doctors trying to make Indian nationals/civilians stop coming to Afghanistan (for ideological-political reasons). JCAla (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: Reliable sources verify terrorist activity as well as the President of Afghanistan himself following the total destruction of the Indian embassy in Afghanistan in 2008. --Agnostosgnostos 08:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
When did he say it should be named as attacks on Pakistan? Paragraphs of that section are not about attacks on Indians rather WP:COATRACK - discussed in detail in the first comment and in explanation to RegentsPark. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede material

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I held off on closing this section of the RFC as I hoped it would receive further input, because, in my opinion, there was no clear consensus; unfortunately, nobody else commented. That said, RFCs kept open indefinitely are not useful and, so, I think it's now time this section too was closed and summarised.

Basically, the majority of editors who chose to comment here appear to lean towards not including the contentious bits of info, but this does not rise to the level of consensus in Wikipedia's terms, in my opinion, because a. quite frankly, some of the rationales put forward are somewhat weak and b. because the opposing view is also supported by a good number of users making policy-based arguments. Since a closing admin should always refrain from casting a supervote, I feel I have to close this section as "no consensus". Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Pakistan's accusation of India's presence in Afghanistan be in the lede?

  • Option 1: Yes
  • Option 2: No
  • Option 1: Pakistan-India relations are a key factor to South Asian politics and stability. This accusation is quite significant and has been repeatedly made by Pakistan (and denied by India). It should be included in the lede with attribution to Pakistan of what it alleges India of, inline with India's denial leaving the rest for the body. This is a significant part of the topic and including it in the lede with attribution and denial will completely justify its weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: Again, no proof of military forces from India being in country, Accusations do not belong in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Lead tells another story. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, used with care: this POV is important for the topic, but it should be carefully presented as POV. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, but explicitly noting that this is not about "military presence" because there is none, but rather about the alleged intelligence activities. This is only about whether Pakistan's allegation with regards to intelligence activities should be mentioned or not. They can be mentioned, if they are presented as a minority position and contrasted with the majority position which says "we attach no credibility to those claims". JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What I suggested above is exactly what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV means. Specifically noting "we attach no credibility to those claims" is incorrect. Only India's denials should be mentioned in the lede inline with this which are relevant. This was actually presented in good form till it was removed I think. Saying "Pakistan claims undeniable evidence for India conducting anti-Pakistan intelligence activities to train Balochi insurgents in Afghanistan while India denies this claim demanding evidence" is just enough for the lede. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The quoted text in the last sentence is very close to what I would prefer to see in the article (though the wording could be tuned for better readability). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no. By "we" I didn't mean the editors, it was a direct quote from Richard Holbrooke. The sentence by TopGun in no way reflects appropriate weight. Pakistan claims, India denies, Afghanistan denies and countries such as the US have said, Pakistan fails to present evidence and "we attach no credibility" to Pakistan's claim. JCAla (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not say "we" meant editors either. In one place we are mentioning national views and on other you are trying to get a sole quote by an individual, Richard Holbrooke, into the lede. This violates WP:WEIGHT. And then adding the allegation inline with denial of ten unrelated countries simply means including it to deny it. That is wrong and against WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan and the US are hardly unrelated when it comes to supposed activities inside Afghanistan. Holbrooke was speaking for the US government from his official position. JCAla (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you think we need to say Holbrooke instead of US, and then why does his full quotation get weight in the lead while the involved parties are getting just an accusation and denial. I think the sentence I suggested above is fairly enough weight in the lead. Try to get it neutral and not include all the details in the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to name Holbrooke in the lead, but we should name Afghanistan's and the US' position for obvious reasons. JCAla (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way you want to add them with full quotations does not have enough weight in the lede. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 changed, per AshLin below. JCAla (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 A very notable topic usually raised on the subject of India's presence in Afghanistan is Pakistan's accusations of India's intelligence activity inside Afghanistan. This has also been discussed in numerous reliable sources. It would be entirely WP:WEIGHT-worthy and within the working limits of WP:DUE to make a brief note of this in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Raising the Indian bogey in Baluchistan and Indian involvement in Afghanistan is an old tactic of POV warriors such as TG. There is no proof of either military presence or of Indian intelligence activities in Afghanistan. Keeping in view, the initiator TG's tendency to make a false accusation (see section below) and tall claims unsupported by refs, I would advise all neutral editors to re-visit all his arguments and make up their mind for themselves based on evidence. AshLin (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above argument should be noted to be based on a personal attack. All my arguments are based on actual reasons unlike yours. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Should be. IFF it is suitably cited. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the citations about Pakistan's accusations are not disputed. All agree that Pakistan has made these accusations and that India denies those. Perhaps you meant "option 1"?--lTopGunl (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military content issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It's rather difficult to close this particular part of the RFC, because consensus seems to be overwhelming that the article should mention that India has no military presence in Afghanistan. The problem, however, is that the consensus emerging from a request for comment cannot override policy – and WP:V is one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies. I am inclined to close this section as "the article should mention that India has no military presence in Afghanistan iff this statement can be attributed to reliable sources". My personal opinion is that Raza's article cannot be used to support this statement, as to do so would run afoul of WP:OR; this leaves Qadri's op-ed, which, individually considered, would not be enough, and Tharoor's article in The Times of India. In my opinion as an editor and not in my capacity as closing administrator, I believe that WP:BURDEN is satisfied, but I suggest you open a WP:RSN thread to receive further input regarding the issue. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article mention that 'India has no military presence in Afghanistan'?

  • Option 1: Yes
  • Option 2: No
  • Option 2: This can certainly not be stated as a fact. We have a whole section of allegations on this matter in the article with sources. Mentioning as a fact that India has no military presence in Afghanistan violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and specifically mentioning that in an unrelated section ("Indian Aid") is completely undue. It should be mentioned in the section about the intelligence activity along with the other allegations and denials with attribution to who states as such. This probably might already be covered there, so a better idea will be to add this source to that text along side. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: India has no military in Afghanistan. Again only Pakistan has made these allegations, and again they have provided no proof. Plenty of sources were provided to TG which say India has no troops in country, so we really need to say what the sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: I see no independent reliable sources claiming otherwise. The WP:V policy applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: Same as Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: I am the protagonist opposing Top Gun in thus issue. My view is that any military presence of India would not have escaped notice in such a high visibility country as Afghanistan. User:Top Gun is unable to provide reliable references for details of induction, force level, mandate, agreements between Indian & Afghan governments, incidents, casualties, bases etc (all normal basic issues connected with military presence in any country). In my view, a few embassy military personnel do not constitute a military presence. My stance is that User:Top Gun need only prove me wrong with reliable sources from a neutral agency. AshLin (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: Unless there are some reliable references, it needs be mentioned that India has no military presence --sarvajna (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just verified the references for the sentence "India has no military presence in Afghanistan". They don't add up. WP:BURDEN is on the inclusion side here. That would be AshLin. First reference, an opinion [3] (and I thought DS and AshLin were quite opposed to op-eds?). And should I be surprised, reference two is fake. [4]. It does not mention what is claimed. Infact, it does mention this:
    "Development projects apart, India is now preparing to provide the Afghans military and police training. This in itself is both a herculean task and fraught with negative possibilities. For one, any Indian military presence in Afghanistan will only add to Pakistan's anti-India hysteria of a two-front threat. That will surely undo all of Manmohan Singh's bilateral efforts to woo Pakistan, despite its established role in cross-border terror attacks in India. And how India hopes to train and equip Afghan soldiers - known to switch loyalties quickly to the best paymaster - when our own army is overstretched at home and our policemen are inadequately trained and equipped to battle terror or the Naxalite menace, is anybody's guess."
    This is exactly opposite of the claim in the sentence. I'll advise above users to reconsider their !votes. An unattributed (and unreliable) op-ed can not be used to state this as a fact (along with a reference that says exactly opposite? Seriously?). Also look at the half quote that has been provided along with the reference from the above quoted paragraph... completely cherry picked and opposite of the context. And the we have to see the inconsistency this sentence would be creating in the article. There are accusations claiming evidence (notable ones) that India does have military presence in Afghanistan and trains insurgents... but even if we say that those are just accusations, at the very best we ought not to mention this sentence at all and let the accusations and denials in the other section handle this. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is from a well respected journalist. [5][6] He is widly quoted in academic books as an expert on the region The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda OUP p175 Afghanistan Greenhaven p222 War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists? ABC Clio p252. I think he is good for the statement that India has no troops in country. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, unattributed op-ed. And the fake reference raises a red flag. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Best ask on the RSN board about it then. I do not see how the other reference is fake. Yes there ere some OR. It does not say the opposite as what you are claiming though, For one, any Indian military presence in Afghanistan will only add to Pakistan's anti-India hysteria of a two-front threat. It is obvious to conclude from this that there are no troops in country, but that India is preparing for the possibility. India is now preparing to provide the Afghans military and police training. as you can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It does state the opposite about the training and presence. And it concludes just the opposite of what you are saying. It would be WP:SYNTH to say from that statement that India has no military presence in Afghanistan. And no, the op-ed can not be stated as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*There is the broader verifiable truth on one hand and there is OR and insinuation but with lots of wiki-lawyering on the other. Now that TG has not proven the fact, he wants it removed altogether since he cant prove it otherwise.
    • FYI, the statement I am defending has been added by JC_Ala and not by me, so BURDEN argument wont work here.
    • TG considers a Pakistani woman reminiscing in her personal capacity based on personal opinions as an acceptable op-ed whereas he proclaims as fake a serious piece written on topic as an official op-ed by a strategic affairs expert.
    • I would be happy to just have stated my point point above, left it at that depending upon the neutral editors to form their own opinion & let TG not just state his point but pontificate at length. But he now accuses me of deliberately having added a FAKE reference. I would request all third party editors to verify for themselves that:
      • The ref is from "Times Of India". India's largest-selling and most influential newspaper.
      • That the piece is an opinion-editorial under the specific column "opinion" and constitutes a genuine op-ed.
      • That Maroof Raza is a strategic affairs expert from India. See Google search on "Maroof Raza".
      • That his article clearly cautions India against a military presence in Afghanistan.
      • To corroborate this evidence, here is another reliable reference - third party, which I could not have "faked". I quote a complete paragraph (as TG says I quote partial paragraphs to forward my point of view), which sums up for the article's readers, the Indian position in the region :
Sergei Desilva-Ranasinghe (13 February 2012). "Iranian sanctions predicament". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 14 February 2012. India has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Afghanistan, as part of its effort to assert its influence in the region. Similarly, India is also active in Central Asia. It has stationed military personnel in Tajikistan, is involved in oil and gas exploration in Uzbekistan, and has signed agreements with Kazakhstan in a number of areas, emphasizing uranium, agriculture, public health, information technology, education and oil and gas.

AshLin (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I always wanted it removed. And please keep your comments to the content. Verifying a reference that does not say what is claimed is not wikilawyering, that will not get any more credibility to your reply either. You should note that WP:BURDEN is on all those editors who want to include (or defend) something. You have endorsed JCAla's edits by reverting mine to them. So WP:BURDEN fully stands. You added a reference without verifying it with cherry picked quotes presenting the context exactly the opposite what was being said. The second point is exactly what I refer to here... the same user wants me to remove op-eds but is including and defending them. This is ridiculous. Also, don't put words in my mouth. I've not accused you of doing any thing 'deliberately'. But from the looks of it, it sure looks like this.. the fact that you are still defending it is even more worrying. "The ref is from "Times Of India"", so what? I didn't say it was a non RS... I said it doesn't state what you claim. That makes it fake. It does not say India has no military presence in Afghanistan. It only talks about a training plan and all. And no, your new quotation does not state (actually specifically avoids stating) any thing about India's military presence. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's information: I added the content with this reliable Time Magazine source which states: "India does not have troops in Afghanistan". Further sources are available such as "India has no troops in Afghanistan ... India is not a member of the United States led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a largely Nato operation to which it was not invited to contribute, given Pakistani sensitivities about a possible Indian military presence in Afghanistan." JCAla (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your additions were, the debate was on sources currently placed there. They have major issues. Will comment on the new sources later. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Time Magazine source is still there. Just a sentence further down the road. JCAla (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have possibly known. Will verify that too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counter checked [7] this source as well... these claims are also attributed to "Indians" by the source and not stated as a fact. All the support points above are based on such claims which are actually attributed to Indians and can not be stated as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will suggest TopGun to keep his conspiracy theories and day-dreamings to himself.(back to personal attacks on me ? ) what stops me from participating on an RFC on my watchlist article? --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This tag is not a personal attack in anyway. And the reasons are evident since you were not a participant of both the ANI and this, and appear out of nowhere to support the editors who asked you to. I'll leave the rest on closer to weigh. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a conscious policy decision keeping in mind that nation's with far less at stake have a military presence in the nation. AshLin (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it seems odd to throw it in without context. I know I should be sticking to the RfC but the entire article is bizarre. Two entire sections (Indians_in_Afghanistan#Indian_Aid_in_Afghanistan and Indians_in_Afghanistan#Alleged_intelligence_activity_and_support_for_insurgents) belong in Indo-Afghan relations.There is nothing at all in the article about Afghani-Indians, the purported subject of the article. Seems to me that the article is entirely a political battlefield of sorts. --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You should have seen the article before I began editing it! The history was virtually non-existant. AshLin (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking. This version, though minimal, is about Indians in Afghanistan. This version is where the politics of wikipedia editors starts creeping in. By this version, the POV balancing act (by adding POV from both sides) is pretty much in operation. The rest of the article history is mostly a struggle between opposing POV pushing with the poor Afghani Indians forgotten by the wayside. If you ask me, we should revert the article back to this version], bolster the history section a bit, and all go back to editing other stuff. But, I'm not holding my breath. --regentspark (comment) 19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there is some traction for this idea, I propose going back to this version] and then proceeding with negotiated edits on the article. I.e., no material will be added without first seeking consensus on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the article going back to that position and it should be strictly be about Indians in Afghanistan wihout all the other stuff which people could move to Inda-Afghanistan relations. AshLin (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The version you are proposing was up for deletion... to fix those issues, this content is bound to get back in. After the complications we do have here now, a better way would be to trim content through this RFC. I had the same point about the statement in negative about Indian troops in Afghanistan, seemed pointy per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The version that was up for deletion was this one. Many of the delete votes referred to the insurgency section as a WP:COATTRACK and numerous keep !voters seemed troubled by the content. My suggested version above is simpler and would be a much better starting point for consensus seeking. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source removed

This source was deemed acceptable on the RSN board. [1] It should be returned. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ QADRI, MUSTAFA (4 FEBRUARY 2010). "Should we talk to the Taliban?". ABC. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Please add to Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents section

Pakistan on Thursday described as “factually incorrect” the claim reported in Pakistan's right wing media that India has 32 "consulates" in Afghanistan along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which are claimed to "destabilise" the nation.[1]

Not done: There is already content in the article about this subject and your text does not blend into it well. Could you try to meld your point into the current text? Also, please do not say "on Thurday" like a newspaper, read WP:DATED. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3155622.ece

File:Karzai and Singh in May 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Karzai and Singh in May 2011.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Karzai and Singh in May 2011.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parliament delays summer recess.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Parliament delays summer recess.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Parliament delays summer recess.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indians in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indians_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1195339121"