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)

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)

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)

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

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.