Talk:Kulbhushan Jadhav

Hussain Mubarak Patel

TripWire Please read the official MEA release where the India spokesperson clearly states "As to the question of his so-called fake identity or original Indian passport, we can only ascertain all this once we have consular access". This settles the claim that India has objected to the passport he has carried or atleast not agreed to it and is thus as of now a Pakistani claim. Link here([1]). The word alleged has always existed and was removed recently by another editor in a so called "copy-edit". Thus, it was added back. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read other numerous RS which confirms that Kulbushan was indeed having the alias Hussain Mubarak Patel, I am in a hurry, just posting a few quotes below, they also confirm that not only did he have the alias, but he was also having properties in that (Hussain MUbarek Patel) name inside India. MEA saying that it "cannot comment" until given consular access in no way means that this was an allegation.

• "First, why does Jadhav have two passports, one in his own name and another in the name of Hussein Mubarak Patel? According to The Indian Express, the second passport was originally issued in 2003 and renewed in 2014. The passport numbers are E6934766 and L9630722." - Indianexpress.com
• "Firstpost tracked three properties that Jadhav is believed to own in Mumbai under the alias Hussein Mubarak Patel....Known by the name Mubarak Patel at least to his neighbours, Jadhav or Patel started coming there only in 2006." - www.firstpost.com

These are Indian sources, which not only confirm his alias, rather they have also confirmed that he was owning properties in Mumbai under that nam - yep, that's Indian media, not Pakistani which unearthed properties under his alias. But you still want to put it out as an allegation? Very strange.

—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 13:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The first link you have provided is clearly an opinion piece (if you start reading it carefully). The second link you provided also states this "This revelation from Jadhav or Patel's neighbour has added a new twist to the claims made by Pakistan. Incidentally, Pakistan Army had claimed that he (Jadhav or Patel) was in possession of multiple fake IDs and was operating under the alias of Hussein Mubarak Patel, with an Indian passport of the said name". This means that this is a Pakistani claim and thus alleged. Lastly, the statement by he MEA is the official Indian stance which has clearly not agreed to the fact that this is as of now a Pakistani allegation. I am not sure what further references do you need other than the MEA which is the official Indian stance which supersedes all other media pieces. Also, just FYI the original content mentioned it as alleged so your assertion that "original content stays" is incorrect. Nonetheless I would also urge you not to engage in an edit war like other editors until we have this discussion finished. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed umpteenth time here that both countries will claim, counter-claim, allege and counter-allege in cases like these. Hence, in such cases, 'official' press releases (primary sources) hold little value as compared to secondary sources. India is unlikely to come out and admit Yadav was their spy or he had fake passport nor will Pakistan. But, out of this chaos, as a wikipedian it is our responsibility to write what can be found and supported through RS and investigative journalism, which in this case means that Yadav did have the alias Hussain Mubarak Patel. Not only did the Indian media confirmed and then published the details of his second passport carrying his alias but also dug out properties in his second name in Mumbai. How do you counter that? Just because the 'official' press release said so or the MEA refused to comment?

BTW, the opinion piece was written by Karan Thapar, a renowned Indian journalist who has been awarded International Press Institute-India Award for excellence in the field of journalism, and is an author of atleast 3 books. Nowhere does he mention that Yadav was (1) not holding 2 passports, (2) Yadav's alias was 'alleged'. Rather he confirms that Yadav was aliased Hussain Mubarek Patel when he poses a question: "Why does Jadhav have two passports, one in his own name and another in the name of Hussein Mubarak Patel?". He goes further and confirms that the passport was indeed issued by Indian authorities by saying "According to The Indian Express, the second passport was originally issued in 2003 and renewed in 2014."

As regards the second link, it's the Indian media that had dug out properties in Mumbai under Yadav's alias. How could it be an allegation when it has been confirmed by unbias sources that Yadav has been using his alias to own properties?

Please refrain from initiating and engaging in an edit-war, unless the matter is resolved here. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 13:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

TripWire you should take some time to read WP:RS. Stable version said it was allegation for a long period until someone unilaterally changed it on 2 Feb without explanation. [2] Get consensus for your conspiracy theories first. Anmolbhat (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Avoid personal attacks, please. BTW, will you add something useful to the discussion or will only restrict to accuse others of conspiracy theories without any supportive and intelligent argument? Have a heart, even Yadav's neighbors called called him Hussain Mubarek Patel very much inside India. And yes, that's an Indian website doing the background check on Yadav, not ISI. Cheers. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 14:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious that we should write yadav's biography according to his neighbours? Have you read WP:RS yet? Can you find credible sources? Anmolbhat (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Did you even bother to go through the two links provided above? Again, will you contribute something positive to the discussion?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 14:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

TripWire We need to keep this discussion consistent. You reverted my edits stating that this has not been "objected" by India. I provided you a reference from the MEA India's website which clearly states that India does not agree to this Pakistani claim. Next, you changed your argument point to that we don't need to see the official stances but look at other sources. You added two links, one of which is clearly a WP:SPS since it is an opinion of a journalist. Karan Thapar by no means is an expert on Kulbhushan Jahdav nor has that article been written as piece of investigative journalism (backed by facts and figures) and is thus unacceptable. The second link you provides also states that these are "claims made by Pakistan". Now you are latching on to a statement that there are properties in the name of one Mubarak Patel and thus this validates Pakistan's claims which looks a lot like WP:SYNTHESIS to me on your part. The clear fact is that India's official claims supersedes all other reports/conclusions you can draw and should be reflected in India's claims in the lead same as Pakistani claims. If you disagree, then I am happy to take this to WP:DR or to WP:RSN for Karan Thapars opinion piece. Until then, maintain WP:STATUSQUO on the page which is the mentioning of the word alleged. I would again request both the editors to not engage in reverting each other edits and have a consistent and meaningful discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's surprising that the link you provided only says that the Indian authorities can only say something about his alias once they are given consular access. You are basing your argument on a vague point but are not ready to accept that the Indian media itself has unearthed that Yadev has been living inside India under the alias Hussain Patel, have also owned properties under that name and is also known to his neighbors with that name. Moreover, many Indian journalists have been questioning Indian authorities so as why did Yadav had 2 passports, which todate Indian officials hasn't given any worthwhile response. The only argument in the press release you provided (which in itself is highly unreliable source as it's the official version guven by the Indian govt) is that he was kidnapped from Iran and that they will comment further once they are given consular access to Yadav. I dont know how can you deny RS like the Indian media itself which has proved that Yadav did has a second name, owned properties in that name and lived in Mumbai under that name. I can quote numerous other RS saying the same thing, but only quoted the Indian sources as Pakistani sources can be charged with carrying /supporting the Pakistani version of he story. Surprisingly, it is the Indian RS that are saying that Yadev did has an alias of Hussain Patel. MEA merely refusing to comment on this cannot be taken as RS, especially when it hasn't categorically denied that the passport under his alias (Patel) didnt exit. Anyhow, I dont have anything more to say for now, so I rest my case.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This really seems, to me, an attempt to throw a bunch of things at the issue and hope something sticks. Please be careful with your choice of words and assertions. You term the source from the official MEA website as "unreliable". By this logic can we extend and state that all Pakistani Government sources are unreliable as well? The page must present the official claims of the Pakistani government which it does and correct labels them as Pakistani claims. Similarly it clearly states the claims of the Indian Government's claims and labels them appropriately. Anything more on your part is purely an attempt at WP:SYNTHESIS. Your first argument was that the Indian Government did not officially deny it. But when a source was presented, you termed the official Indian government source as "unreliable" and started a whole different argument. Please remember that the states claims supersede all other claims and need to be presented in the lead since this is the official stance and needs to be reflected in the article. In the future, please keep your discussion points consistent and try to edit the article with a NPOV. Also, before jumping into the article and engaging in an edit war try to understand what was the WP:STATUSQUO and discuss the changes on the talk page (not the other way around). Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Really? The long list of arguments that I have been giving, you consider them a "a bunch of things" in a "hope something sticks"? If this is how you are going to downplay arguments from the other side, then you not assuming a good faith while disrespecting fellow WPidians' arguments - a must for an WP editor. MY advice: please refrain from it.

Coming towards your claim. You need to understand that MEA is a primary source, and it has been given WP:DUE wieghtage in the article already. We will not convert WP into India MEA's mouthpiece. Sorry. Being a primary source in this case, MEA hold little significant when compared to other, "independent" RS. I have given you following logics, and none of them have been countered by you, instead you have been attacking me and casting WP:ASSERTION:

• MEA is not a RS in this case. WP is not MEA's mouthpiece. Indian stance has already been given its due share as does Pakistan's.
• Independent, even better, Indian media has published the following:

• Yadav had 2 passports, both issued by the Indian authorities, one of them carrying the name Hussain Mubarek Patel. - This hasnt been categorically denied by India, only that they have nothing to say aka will comment blah blah when they get consular access. Not a rocket science to understand what that means.
• Yadav owned properties under his alias inside India. - Seriously, the guy had properties under his alias, which has been verified by third party sources, in this case, the India media, and you still are trying to push your POV by sticking to the nationalist approach and drumming out MEA's (vague) statement?
• During his visits to those properties, he was known by his alias by people around him. - This is being said by Indian media, not Pakistani.

• Indian journalists and others have been questioning Indian authorities so as why and how an individual was issued 2 passports. - Something, the India authorities have been trying to evade by saying "we can only comment once given consular access."

Lastly, please understand what exactly WP:SYNTHESIS implies before throwing around polices.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 07:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Folks, the Indian government has not explicitly contested the pseudonyms. The Indian media have reported them as facts. So, as per our WP:RS policies, I don't see the need to label them as Pakistani claims. Such a need arises only if they have been contested in reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I disagree with your claim that the Indian media has reported them as facts. I am going to rebut the points raised above which will counter your point as well

• I fail to see how MEA cannot be WP:RS in this case. It puts forth India's official stand on the issue. On the contrary, MEA has not been used so far in the article so you cannot claim that it has given its WP:DUE weight age. Please have a look at the article again before you make random claims.
• The MEA states that they cannot comment on the passport with the name Mubarak Patel until they have access to Jhadav. Yes this not an outright rejection of the Pakistani claim but is also not an acceptance which still makes it a Pakistani claim.
• The Indian media source which is WP:RS clearly states that it is a Pakistani claim that Jhadav was found with an Indian passport. They do not state that this is indeed his alias.
• On the issue of properties, please read the wording carefully since it seems people are jumping the gun. "Firstpost tracked three properties that Jadhav is believed to own in Mumbai under the alias Hussein Mubarak Patel". The emphasis is on believed to own. This is not a complete confirmation of any sorts and merely implies that this might be possible.
• One Indian journalist (not journalists) that has been provided so far. The article is itself an opinion piece by Karan Thapar, who by no means is an expert on this issue, raising questions based on his curiosity. By this definition, we can start taking into consideration the opinions of scores of other journalists as well which state he is innocent and declare him so. ([3]). Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm also in the opinion that MEA has said nothing regarding Yadav having 2 passports. In this case, official version has low importance as compared to independent/Indian sources.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please have the look of the MEA source I have mentioned before making this statement. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The code name claimed by Pakistan mentioned are incorrect

The code name, claimed by Pakistan mentioned are incorrect. If one goes through the references provided, it becomes clear that the so called code name "Monkey" is invented just to rattle Indian counterparts and sensatise general opinion. This goes against factual and neutral nature of Wikipedia. Thus it needs to be removed. Aniruddha (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Aniruddha can you please specify where it "becomes clear". Per WP:NPOV, this is a claim maid by Pakistan and thus has to be mentioned with the correct notation which it has been. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

UN statement

@Anachronist: Why you are removing the sentence only because you find one word to be contrary to WP:NPOV? That's really subjective argument and I was expecting you to raise on talk page first. Whether it should be on lead or body, I had already told that you can move it anywhere you would like to. As of now, you have only removed the important content, leading me to ask if you really want the content or not? If you want it then how you would like to reword it. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lead because the body makes absolutely zero mention of it. And it mimics the editorial slant of the source in Wikipedia's voice, which violates WP:NPOV. I explained this clearly in the edit summary. I don't see how the content is relevant, so I would prefer it be removed. If you disagree, then feel free to re-insert it in an appropriate place with neutral language. Even in the body, it still doesn't need a mention in the lead. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The criticism from UN is important. You can convince if you have any better reason for outright removal. If it is not going to be included in the lead, then maybe a new subsection can be created for UN. Sdmarathe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• The UN criticized the justice-system of Pakistan without any (emphasis on)/(mention of) Kulbhusan's case (AFAIS) and the Indian media-units latched onto it to discredit Kulbhusan's hearing and all.Unless reliable third-party-sources have criticized Kulbhushan's hearing and the court-martial, by particularly drawing from the report, mentioning it in the lead is copying POV-reporting by particularly-biased media side(s).∯WBG^converse 12:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The U.N had clearly shown concerns over Pakistan government “authorising military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences”. The U.N has been quoted here. I have provided a total of 4 highly reliable sources one of which is this :- https://m.timesofindia.com/india/un-report-slams-opaque-pak-military-courts-let-civil-courts-try-jadhav-like-cases-says-panel/articleshow/58689592.cms

You Winged Blades of Godric need to read the sources provided before removing anything. Adding The Truth (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Adding The Truth (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The UN has shown concern about authorising military courts to try civilians for terrorism related offences and it's a part of many other critical observations.The rest of linkage to Kulbhushan's case is pure OR by Indian Media units, who are obviously biased to a certian extent.Mention iff reliable third-party-sources (not Indian or Pakistani) has criticized Pakistan's handling of the case, based on the report.or else ask for Dispute resolution.∯WBG^converse 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And, I'll probably provide some ears to your advice(s) about how to read a source, once you manage to come clear of the SPI and your SPA motives.∯WBG^converse 13:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Also as Anachronist sed, this's not lead-stuff, at any case with zero mentions elsewhere.∯WBG^converse 14:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The UNITED NATIONS criticized the handling of civilian terror related cases by the Pakistan military courts. Is it not third-party and reliable enough? Just because you don't like Indian media and think it's OR doesn't mean they're wrong and make it such. There are plenty of Pakistan media citations provided throughout the article. How are they reliable then if Indian media isn't according to you?

If you're concerned about it being only in the lead and not the body, you are free to create a subsection for it.

I have told you plenty of times already, don't remove anything before any consensus here on the talk page. Adding The Truth (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adding The Truth: Editors seldom gain a lot by dictating other editors what not to do. Especially in a content dispute. Sam Sailor 15:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor, I'm new here as you can tell by my profile. I was hoping someone jump in to give direction to this pointless discussion. Please make a comment on this issue. Adding The Truth (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Confession video

This section in the article is not a NPOV since all the links belong Pakistani news agencies which might provide doctored videos and audio clips. The confessions are exaggerated and written in more detail than needed. This need to be shorten up and tone needs to be changed. It looks like Pakistanis have hold on this article. ---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 19:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)