Talk:2016 Uri attack

Meaningless edit war

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. 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. -- 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 unsigned comment added by 117.239.226.201 (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. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The dust is yet to settle. For the time being, if a term is sourced to a good quality source, we should let it be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

No source calls it as an "Islamist attack", not any I've seen anyway. Sources only state that the suspected perpetrators JeM are Islamists which isn't enough rational to term it as an Islamic attack. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not come across the term,"Islamist attack" anywhere in the article. It only mentions the attack as being a "terrorist attack" which i feel is correct. The article only mentions that the JeM is an "Islamist militant organisation" which i feel also is correct. Secondly, DinoBambinoNFS has stated that "the main purpose of such attacks is not an Islamist motive (which is the definition of Islamist terrorism), but rather the independence of Kashmir." Let me correct him by stating that the main purpose of organisations like the JeM is not the independence of Kashmir, but rather the annexation of Kashmir into Pakistan. "Azad Kashmir" (lit. Independent Kashmir) is not a separate nation but is controlled by Pakistan with an iron fist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopolitixx (talk • contribs) 12:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Geopolitixx, when I said independent of Kashmir I meant annexation by Pakistan also, not just Kashmir becoming a separate country. I was generalising both the independence of Kashmir as well as annexation by Pakistan. Ofcourse it isn't accurate but regardless you get what I tried to convey. The primary goal behind Kashmir insurgency is Kashmir's secession or breaking away from India. I hope I was accurate this time. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

To the editor that had an issue with me including the term 'Islamist' in the lead sentence, terrorism is almost always identified with the political ideology behind the specific incident. The 1996 Manchester bombing includes the IRA in the lead, 9/11 clearly includes Islamism in the lead, and seeing that this was an act of terror perpetrated by a group that calls itself 'The Army of Mohammad', the ideology behind the attack is obvious. This isn't about attacking any religious group, this is about laying the facts bare on Wikipedia as it should be, so I apologise if I offended your personal sensibilities by adding 'Islamist' to the lead sentence. Also, all the back-and-forth about whether this counts as a terrorist attack or not is pretty futile, there is no other term to describe an attack of this sort.Tiger7253 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What is missing in this instance is a reliable source. Please provide a source and we can discuss it afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tiger7253, you didn't understand what I said in my edit summary. The only issue I have is with edits being unsourced and adding something which hasn't been confirmed by anyone. Jaish-e-Mohammad is only "suspected", its involvement has not been confirmed. Even the army hasn't identified who is behind the attacks, nor any source confirms who was behind it. In case of 9/11, the attackers were clearly identified as attackers of Al-Qaeda. But in the case of Uri attacks, the attackers have not even been identified by the army, media, police or anyone. So how can you claim which ideology they belong to when it is not even knoen who was behind it? If Jaish-e-Mohammad's or any other Islamist group's involvement is fully confirmed and the reliable sources report it, feel free to add it back along with adding a reliable source. But right now, what you added is completely unsourced and hasn't been confirmed by anyone. That was the only issue. We should wait for the investigation to conclude instead of adding our own assumptions. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC

The NIA has just started investigating it. So we should wait instead of adding our own assumptions. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Google News

Interestingly, Google News is indexing this page as news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not surprised a bit. Google search engine is sometimes mega-stupid. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan's response

Pakistan has denied any hand in it. Since it is suspected behind the attack, I was wondering whether it should have a separate section since it is suspected to be behind it unlike other countries. Oe should it be under "Other countries"? DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it has already been created by someone else. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should have a separate section. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

How is this terrorism? Or "mass murder"?

You don't have to like the ideology (ostensibly conservative Islamism?) of the group in question to bring this fact up. It doesn't look like "terrorism" or "murder" to me; in the objective sense it's an operation by a paramilitary organization targeting the Indian army-- armed combatants targeting armed combatants in other words.70.48.46.171 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

We go by what the reliable sources say. No WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

BWT- There is state terrorism too.Lihaas (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

But the fact is that most reputable sources mention it to be a terrorist attack and no definite widely accepted evidence of"STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM" have been yet reported by any mainstream media irrespective of the various allegations.I think it will be logical to abide by the No WP:OR principle.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Aligarh Muslim University

Regarding this revert, I included this as an example of Indian public reaction. It is notable, perhaps among many, because of the parties involved, a Muslim-dominated University, Kashmiri student etc. The way things are developing, we need to capture the mood in the country, rather than giving a long list of X had a meeting, Y said blah etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

1 student being expelled over a FB post is hardly noteworthy. You yourself told me that we shouldn't add everyone's reaction. One man's opinion ofcourse won't be necessarily the mood of significant number of people. I don't see any reason to add it. If however say multiple students were expelled, then it might be notable in real. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dino, it is not the expulsion that matters. It is the fact that the Vice Chancellor thought it necessary and appropriate to expel a student for a facebook post. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya. AMU's VC expelling a student too isn't really notable. If I am correct, AMU is funded by the government. If AMU allows anti-national students on its campus, isn't it going to damage its reputation and won't it be seen as an anti-national hub? Will the government fund such a university? It might, but that's not what I mean. Doesn't any college or university that lets anti-national or supposedly anti-national students on its campus risk inviting the wrath of the government, public and nationalist organizations? For example, the JNU scandal. I'm not trying to be an expert but, any other college or university would have done the same thing in place of AMU. That's why I doubt the VC expelling a student over an anti-national post should be here because this incident doesn't present a mood of some people, but simply how colleges and universities react to anti-national activities. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said it is an example. Please find and add material to capture the mood of the country. Right now, the reactions sections reads rather like door darshan. We want this article to be at least worthy of a respectable news source, if not a scholarly source. (By the way, Google News is deliberately putting us up there.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to but I'm not sure. If I find it, I'll suggest it here. You should do the same. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see some contentious issues cropping up in the edits today. Here is my view on them.

• Name: Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir vs Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. We can discuss this till cows come home. But it is not a big deal. Let us agree to use the neutral terminology.
• heavily-armed: Plenty of RS have used that term, e.g.[1].
• 2016 Kashmir unrest in the lead: As I said yesterday, we need to present facts first and theories later. The 2016 Kashmir unrest is certainly a fact, but the connection between that and the Uri attack a theory. Moreover, I haven't seen any reliable source make a clear connection between the two. So, I believe putting it in the lead is UNDUE.
• Bangladesh - if the content is not official Bangladesh reaction, I think we should delete it.
• Jaish-e-Mohammad - the source that has been provided clearly states that it is based on Pakistan. So I am not sure why this description has been removed. If and when its role is confirmed, we can add more detail about the organisation, not until then.
• See also links: 2016 Kashmir unrest shouldn't be there per our normal practice if it is also linked in the body. The more relevant See also links are 2016 Pathankot attack and 2015 Gurdaspur attack, e.g., this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fully appreciate with Kautilya3. Spartacus! ^t@lk 19:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of reliable sources mention the unrest as the context of the attack (like BBC). These types of things always mention the background and we should too.VR _talk 04:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

[Copied from Talk:India-Pakistan relations -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)]

The following restriction is placed on this article and all others in the India-Pakistan topic area, broadly construed, as a result of this arbitration enforcement request:

• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

• A socking accusation restriction Any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations ignored on article or user talk pages. SPI is the only place for such allegations.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Other nations

Discussions initiated by blocked sockpuppet

In Other Nations Section, in United States Section, an entry bill entry has been mentioned which is not yet been accepted. Individual US Congressmen bill doesn't represent US policy. It is therefore requested to remove entries of bill and only Approved Publications shall be mentioned. Thanks Rugby9090 (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC) I disagree. US Senators are elected government officials, even though they are in the non-executive branch of the government. Their reactions are perfectly qualified for inclusion. Please take it to WP:NPOVN if you are not convinced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 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 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. Bharatiya29 14:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC) The same applies to former Bangladeshi high commissioner's statement. Bharatiya29 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 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. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC) User:Bharatiya29 It is also noticed that this bill doesn't mention any thing about URI Attack. Why is it made a part of this article ? As requested by Kautilya3, requested modification will now be moved to WP:NPOVN User:Bharatiya29 I agree with your comment. Ex Bangladesh Envoy views doesn't represent current Government Views. It is therefore requested to remove his statement. If Bangladesh issues any official press release, please add it. Rugby9090 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3 This matter is sent to WP:NPOVN . Please avoid any further modifications till admins resolve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugby9090 (talk • 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. Bharatiya29 15:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC) User:Bharatiya29 you have recently added Armenia and Bahrain views on "2016 URI Attack" . . The reference you mentioned has no names, designation and date. Please provided valid references. In the mean time, revert the text to original WP:UNDUE WP:BIASED Rugby9090 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) References Bangladesh Someone please rewrite the inaccurate Bangladeshi reaction. Syed Muazzem Ali is indeed the current Bangladeshi high commissioner to India [2]. There has also been an official reaction from PM Sheikh Hasina [3].--AzaanJC (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC) User:AzaanJC As per current citation of Bangladesh Foreign Affairs Website, he is not working there. Please share any reliable citation if he is currently working for Bangladesh Government. Please also share any press release by PM Sheikh Hasina / Bangladesh Government as shared by other countries in their Foreign Affairs Website. Rugby9090 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC) The foreign ministry website refers to his tenure as foreign secretary [4]. Hope that clears the confusion.--AzaanJC (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Link shared by you contains Bangladesh Former Foreign Secretaries list. As per link shared, Mr. Syed Muazzem Ali tenure ended in July 2001. Please share valid citations from Bangladesh Government. Rugby9090 (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Rugby9090 The first link provided by AzaanJC is a perfectly reliable source. No further verification necessary unless you provide a source that contradicts the information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3 Link given by AzaanJC contradicts with WP:Primary[5] i.e. Bangladesh Foregin Affairs website mentions Mr. Syed Muazzem Ali as an ex envoy where are as WP:Secondary WP:NEWSORG states otherwise. Hence WP:QUESTIONABLE. It is again requested to provide a valid citation from Bangladesh Government. 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? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC) The Bangladeshi high-commission to India does say that Syed Muazzem Ali is the High Commissioner.VR talk 05:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Pakistani military reaction

I added Pakistani military reaction, but it was reverted. Why?VR _talk 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Kashmir unrest

Most reliable sources I read on the attack mention the Kashmir unrest, since the killing of Burhan Wani. Here's a few: BBC News, New York Times, The Telegraph, LA Times, Washington Post etc. We should also mention this.

In fact, Spartacus, the user who reverted me, later on added "At the time of the attack, Kashmir was at the centre of a civil unrest, during which 85 civilians had died in clashes with security forces." So its unclear what exactly Spartacus' point is.VR _talk 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.

As per WP:NEWSORG, newspapers are only reliable for news. A news story generally tells the readers what else has been happening in the area to set the context. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. It has articles on specific topics. The background section (if any) can only discuss those facts that are known to explicitly form the background in the sense of having an impact on the subject in question. See the 2016 Kashmir unrest article where the background is covered in a careful way using reliable sources.

I am afraid your Background section is cherry-picked WP:OR and it has to go.

This article in The Diplomat, which is an RS as far as I know, explicitly mentions the following facts as forming the background:

• Nawaz Sharif's forthcoming address to UNGA (now happened).
• increasing international pressure on Islamabad.
• meeting between John Kerry and Narendra Modi cementing strategic economic ties.
• Ashraf Ghani's visit to New Delhi.
• Chinese warning to Pakistan over delays in CPEC.
• Jane's 360 report that Pakistan is constructing a new Uranium enrichment plant.
• the 2016 Kashmir unrest.
• Numerous "rebel groups operating in the region", including HM, JKLF and LeT.

The article concludes by saying

The attack in Kashmir appears opportunely timed as Islamabad faces international scorn and condemnation over its support of proxy groups in the region; the attack also provides Nawaz Sharif with political fodder to lay the blame at India’s feet for its mistreatment of Kashmiri citizens before the UN General Assembly next week.

I decided that there are too many unknowns yet to write a proper Background section. If you are intent on writing one, please use a reliable source like this one, not random cherry pickings from news reports. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the talk section above, and in fact, I tried to discuss things there. Yet, my edits were reverted, and I see no message posted after my message, hence I decided to open a new section to get users' attention. And also, I don't see any consensus either way on this matter.

You say "please use a reliable source like this one, not random cherry pickings from news reports". Do BBC News, New York Times, The Telegraph, LA Times, 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 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.VR _talk 21:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a tacit consensus of some sort as 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 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. -- 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. -- 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.VR _talk 23:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Editing restrictions reminder

Please be aware that this article is subject to the editing restrictions on articles related to the Kashmir Conflict listed here. In particular, maximum 1 revert, no aspersions, no reversions without discussion, and a civility restriction. --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 let me know.

I see that at least one of my edits (which added the reaction of the Pakistani military) was reverted without any explanation on the talk page. After the revert, I've asked about this on the talk page. So would that revert be a violation of the editing restrictions?VR _talk 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. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this happened once again. I just added some analysis by a former Pakistani general and within 15 minutes this was deleted without any discussion on the talk page.VR _talk 21:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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

...and this happened yet again!! I added something reported in a reliable source, within 7 minutes it was reverted. No discussion on the talk page regarding this particular edit. And this is the second revert by the same user in an hour (first). Whatever happened to WP:1RR?VR _talk

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 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) VR _talk 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Gen. Musharraf

I have deleted the opinions attributed to Gen. Musharraf precisely for the reasons stated in the edit summary. They are not reactions to the attack. Secondly, they are private opinions of an individual, however notable he might be, countering official positions issued by a government. They can only be countered by the other government. If Gen. Musharraf were to be an RS, having published in peer-reviewed sources, that would be another matter. But he is not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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, there are other types of reliable sources too, including news articles. All reliable sources need not be peer-reviewed.VR _talk 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. -- 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. -- 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.VR _talk 01:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vice regent: @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 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. Mar4d (talk) 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 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. -- 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.VR _talk 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. DinoBambinoNFS (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If his reactions aren't noteworthy, why were they covered by India Today, Hindustan Times, ARY News, Zee News - and these are just the Indian media. Pakistani media covered him widely as well.VR _talk 14:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Did anyone else have any other thoughts on this matter?VR _talk 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 Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · 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.VR _talk 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.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ 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).VR _talk 15:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3:, do you mind explaining 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?VR _talk 18:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges. I included information provided in a 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.[6]. 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. -- 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 sources. Are you saying that India Today, Hindustan Times, ARY News are not reliable sources? Can we agree that they are reliable sources?VR _talk 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.

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.

There is no way we are going to include this man's opinions as being worthy. If you have a top-rated journalist who has produced reputable incisive analyses, support Musharraf's view, please produce such and we will reconsider. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What does going to dance parties have anything to do with this?

No one here has said Musharraf's comments are accurate. Only that they are notable. Notable means they that they have received significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources. Let me ask you a few questions:

• Have Musharraf's views made the headlines of articles in India Today, Hindustan Times, ARY News?
• Are India Today, Hindustan Times, and ARY News reliable sources?

Please answer the above two questions. Thanks VR _talk 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 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. Mar4d (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Background

I've removed background as there's no RS sufficiently giving due weightage to the listed incident as background. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Do you not consider BBC News, New York Times, The Telegraph, LA Times, 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.VR _talk 14:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have now 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?VR _talk 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 Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · 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, both Pakistan officials and Indian officials have talked about Burhan Wani. Additionally, the article says:

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.VR _talk 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. -- 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 reliable sources (see above) that give the unrest as necessary context for the attack. Ten reliable sources. That's a lot, man.VR _talk 19:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

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

• Vukovar massacre - This article is about a massacre of Croat prisoners by the JNA. The background talks about the situation between the Croats and Serbs before the massacre.
• 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.VR _talk 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.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ 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.VR _talk 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 article in support!!!But the background sections definitely needs to be trimmed!!!(Sorry for the late reply!!)Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ 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.VR _talk 14:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources unrelated to Uri attack

Kautilya recently added stuff from a source that has nothing to do with the Uri attack. 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 this source, as it clearly talks about the Uri attack.)VR _talk 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. 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.VR _talk 18:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

• 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.VR _talk 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.VR _talk 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 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. -- 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?VR _talk 23:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

False Acquisitions by Indian Media

WP:NOTAFORUM

I am forming a Article / Section for "False Acquisitions by Indian Media" starting with URI Attack. List down at least 5 events / news that turned out to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.255.44.53 (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.VR talk 20:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC) 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.VR talk 20:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing duplicate material

This edit seems to have duplicated the following content:

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.VR _talk 17:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, seeing 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.VR _talk 17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Number of civilian deaths in the lede

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.VR _talk 17:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

By whom

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: CBC News, MetroNews, CBS News. They are too many to list. Any suggestions as to how we can better word this?VR _talk 18:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Expanded Background section

[Link to 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. Mar4d (talk) 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.

The Uri attack is seen by most experts as the last in a series of attacks, which have been accepted by all the specialists in the area as coming from the territory of Pakistan, irrespective of whether they have been sponsored by the government or not.

I have also included a paragraph on Gurdaspur and Pathankot attacks which have been linked to the present attack by a reliable source.

And, I haven't yet even begun to use C. Christine Fair and Husain Haqqani, who have been somewhat controversial at least in some countries. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is an example [7]:

Jaish-e-Mohammed has participated in multiple terror attacks in India and has provided crucial aid to al Qaeda.... Military facilities in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan have been frequently targeted by jihadist groups based in the region... Despite the mountain of evidence against Jaish-e-Mohammed and its emir, Masood Azhar, for their role in numerous terrorist attacks, Pakistan refuses to crack down on the group and its leader.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I made a similar point above.

Above, Kautilya 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 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 controversial. VR _talk 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 @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 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, Mar4d (talk) 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.
• What is covered in this article includes not only the attack itself, but also the diplomatic war that has ensued between India and Pakistan since the event. So, the background to the Indian allegations as well as Pakistani denials need to be included. It matters little what the sources for were about.
• 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 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. -- 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 your source above notes that the Uri attack has come in, relatively quick succession, after Gurdaspur and Pathankot.VR _talk 14:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Reverted WP:OR

I reverted 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. -- 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. VR _talk 03:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Lihaas edits

Lihaas made about a dozen edits today, none of which I find have any merit.

• This edit reformsts the lead and carries an edit summary that makes no sense. WP:BOLDTITLE asks to use the title of the page in bold in the first sentence. "By whom" is clearly unnecessary because a citation is given and more can be given if necessary.
• There are enough sources calling the perpetrators "terrorists". If Lihaas disagrees, he needs to discuss.
• This edit removes "4 terrorists". Not clear why. JeM is suspected, not confirmed.
• This edit tweaks and quizzes sourced material. We can't provide any answers that the sources don't provide.
• This edit is ok as a copy-editing pass, but I don't think we are at that stage yet. The article is still evolving.
• This edit moves down the Analysis to the bottom without any explanation.
• This edit has more premature copy-editing, unnecessary tagging, unexplained moving of content, and WP:OR like adding "Sushma Saray".
• More of the same in this edit. Not sure why "Line of Control" needs to be abbreviated to LOC.
• This is a jumble of edits without an edit summary.
• This edit for some reason removes an attribution to India Today which has been deliberately put there, without explanation. Can't understand the mindset of this editor who wants attribution where none is needed, but removes it in other places!
• I can't figure out what happened in this edit without an edit summary.

I recommend that we don't do major copy-editing until the dust has settled. Making cosmetic changes is ok, but not like this. If you want to reorganise sections etc., please discuss it first, unless you are sure that they are non-controversial. For adding tags like "by whom" etc., please check the source first and think about whether attribution is needed. Wikipedians don't always agree on where it is needed. We definitely need attribution if something looks like a strong opinion, held by isolated people or agencies. We don't need it if it is widely reported. For everything in between, people differ. And, please don't tag-bomb. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Kautilya3 on the first sentence of the article. Agree that "by whom" is unnecessary. I argued this point above for other content too.
• I personally prefer calling the perpetrators "militants" as opposed to terrorists.
• "4 terrorists" is redundant when Jaish are already mentioned as suspects.
• 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 this edit. Maybe its just a mistake.

VR _talk 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit here. @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.VR _talk 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. -- 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 here.VR _talk 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging @Lihaas: here, so he can offer some thoughts on his edits.VR _talk 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Alleged hoax

Mar4d removed this reported cross-border raid, claiming it is an "obvious hoax". I am not confident that it is. The Quint is a respectable source, and it said that it double-checked it and it stands by it. Other media sources have acknowledged it and some have analysed it. 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. -- 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 reliable evidence to know if it happened.VR _talk 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 reliable source, its information must be corroborated and 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 sensationalist reporting is a no-no, and doesn't belong anywhere in the article. Mar4d (talk) 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.

By the way, the Indian Army is not an RS and whether it denied it or not makes no difference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's probably the best way, since information about these type of events are always hazy in immediate aftermath!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

As the note on the top of the article states, avoid WP:RECENTISM as news reports are unreliable and even propaganda at this stage. Stick to confirmed facts. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cobbered reference

@Madhumandal121: I don't understand the point of this edit. You moved the text ahead of the citation, making it imply that the wrong content is attributed to the wrong source. Can you explain what you are trying to do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Restrictions modified

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. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark:: is this comment (below) a violation of the ethnic claim policy?VR _talk 22:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This one too. I think it refers to me?VR _talk 23:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The first one is canvassing. The second is a clear violation. I'll check if the user has been notified of discretionary sanctions in this area. --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. --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.VR _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. --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 – GSS (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the addition. Please see the comments above by @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. 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. GSS (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Am inviting some active Indian and other users to discuss on this matter. @VarunFEB2003, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, Irrigator, and Bill william compton:. GSS (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mar4d: your this edit also sound so biased so I think you should discuss with other users before reverting their edits. GSS (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tentative keep that's what I would suggest. Getting some 3O response here from a editor from a good-enough user is my opinion. VarunFEB2003 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. Mar4d (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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. GSS (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. Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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. -- 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. 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. GSS (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I too support the last view.Let's not burden the parent article!!!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ 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 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.VR _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 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 – GSS (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.VR _talk 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Connection?

This seems mere publicity of the new article. —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. -- 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? This box is enough to establish the çonnection, for now.—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. —MBL ^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.[8] Hopefully, that'll suffice to justify a see also link. —MBL ^Talk 09:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

MBlaze Lightning recommended me to read MOS:SEEALSO, but himself didnt read MOS:NOTSEEALSO which says: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. As the article already shows Campaignbox India terrorism, 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.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)