Background Information[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents

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

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

  • Option 1: Alleged intelligence activities
  • Option 2: Intelligence activities
  • Option 3: Intelligence activity and support for insurgents
This is because it is a notable and contentious accusation made by Pakistan repeatedly over time on the Indians living in Afghanistan (either working in construction work or otherwise) for such activities. India has denied this every time and this has become a point of contention between the nations... eventually affecting the politics of region. This is notable enough for the inclusion. The neutrality of section heading is the dispute here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that I think about it, RegentsPark is absolutely right! The whole section belongs to the India-Afghanistan article. Not to this article. JCAla (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Regentspark & JCAla's suggestion. I suggest this issue first be discussed regarding applicability to this article and in that I support the removal of this section from here & move it to India-Afghanistan relations and rename it as "Alleged intelligence activities". AshLin (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is completely in regard to Indians in Afghanistan. In that article it will have a different approach but surely should be mentioned. As far as this is concerned, it is completely notable and relevant here. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure. If ethnic group X is singled out to be attacked in country Y, then that's information about X in Y that should be included. However, if an occasional member of X turns out to be an intelligence agent, then I don't see why we need to discuss this at all in an article about X in Y. As an example, we don't go about including a section on Israeli Intelligence activities in the American Jews article just because a couple of Jewish Americans have been spies for Israel. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As lined out by AshLin, disagree with TopGun. JCAla (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we are discussing if the section even has a place in this article. JCAla (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect, it was a clarification asked by regentspark. There's even enough support separately for it to be in the lede. This dispute is just about the section header. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attacks on Indians

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

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

  • Option 1: Terrorist attacks against Indians
  • Option 2: Attacks on Indians
Absolutely, the two are different. These were terrorist attacks since they targeted civilians in one example Indian doctors residing in a guest house. JCAla (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how can you say these were not criminal acts? Reliable sources do not agree on a single definition of "Terrorist" nor do governments. We have a specific policy for not using this word, you need to change that on the policy talk page instead of going against it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between Terrorist, Criminal and Insurgent attacks right? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Terrorist attacks are meant to cause terror in non-combatants to achieve a certain political, ideological or religious goal. Generally, terrorist attacks are also criminal. However, if you simply say criminal attack that generally does not bare the connotation of "terrorism" as it is more often associated with non-political crimes i. e. for self-enrichment. "Insurgent" is a broad term. Someone can be an insurgent without being a terrorist. As an example there could be an insurgency against NATO without the attacks that are targeting non-combatants to cause terror. Such attacks would be the spraying of acids into the faces of girls to make them stop going to school (for ideological-political reasons) or the terrorist attacks against Indian doctors trying to make Indian nationals/civilians stop coming to Afghanistan (for ideological-political reasons). JCAla (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you clearly seemed to have missed the point this section is about attacks on Indians not on Pakistan. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When did he say it should be named as attacks on Pakistan? Paragraphs of that section are not about attacks on Indians rather WP:COATRACK - discussed in detail in the first comment and in explanation to RegentsPark. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede material

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

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

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

  • Option 1: Yes
  • Option 2: No
Wikipedia:Lead tells another story. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no. By "we" I didn't mean the editors, it was a direct quote from Richard Holbrooke. The sentence by TopGun in no way reflects appropriate weight. Pakistan claims, India denies, Afghanistan denies and countries such as the US have said, Pakistan fails to present evidence and "we attach no credibility" to Pakistan's claim. JCAla (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I did not say "we" meant editors either. In one place we are mentioning national views and on other you are trying to get a sole quote by an individual, Richard Holbrooke, into the lede. This violates WP:WEIGHT. And then adding the allegation inline with denial of ten unrelated countries simply means including it to deny it. That is wrong and against WP:NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afghanistan and the US are hardly unrelated when it comes to supposed activities inside Afghanistan. Holbrooke was speaking for the US government from his official position. JCAla (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you think we need to say Holbrooke instead of US, and then why does his full quotation get weight in the lead while the involved parties are getting just an accusation and denial. I think the sentence I suggested above is fairly enough weight in the lead. Try to get it neutral and not include all the details in the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to name Holbrooke in the lead, but we should name Afghanistan's and the US' position for obvious reasons. JCAla (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way you want to add them with full quotations does not have enough weight in the lede. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the citations about Pakistan's accusations are not disputed. All agree that Pakistan has made these accusations and that India denies those. Perhaps you meant "option 1"?--lTopGunl (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military content issue

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

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

  • Option 1: Yes
  • Option 2: No
*There is the broader verifiable truth on one hand and there is OR and insinuation but with lots of wiki-lawyering on the other. Now that TG has not proven the fact, he wants it removed altogether since he cant prove it otherwise.
Sergei Desilva-Ranasinghe (13 February 2012). "Iranian sanctions predicament". The Jakarta Post. Retrieved 14 February 2012. India has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Afghanistan, as part of its effort to assert its influence in the region. Similarly, India is also active in Central Asia. It has stationed military personnel in Tajikistan, is involved in oil and gas exploration in Uzbekistan, and has signed agreements with Kazakhstan in a number of areas, emphasizing uranium, agriculture, public health, information technology, education and oil and gas.

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

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

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

Whatever your additions were, the debate was on sources currently placed there. They have major issues. Will comment on the new sources later. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Time Magazine source is still there. Just a sentence further down the road. JCAla (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have possibly known. Will verify that too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counter checked [5] this source as well... these claims are also attributed to "Indians" by the source and not stated as a fact. All the support points above are based on such claims which are actually attributed to Indians and can not be stated as a fact. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will suggest TopGun to keep his conspiracy theories and day-dreamings to himself.(back to personal attacks on me ? ) what stops me from participating on an RFC on my watchlist article? --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This tag is not a personal attack in anyway. And the reasons are evident since you were not a participant of both the ANI and this, and appear out of nowhere to support the editors who asked you to. I'll leave the rest on closer to weigh. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a conscious policy decision keeping in mind that nation's with far less at stake have a military presence in the nation. AshLin (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it seems odd to throw it in without context. I know I should be sticking to the RfC but the entire article is bizarre. Two entire sections (Indians_in_Afghanistan#Indian_Aid_in_Afghanistan and Indians_in_Afghanistan#Alleged_intelligence_activity_and_support_for_insurgents) belong in Indo-Afghan relations.There is nothing at all in the article about Afghani-Indians, the purported subject of the article. Seems to me that the article is entirely a political battlefield of sorts. --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. You should have seen the article before I began editing it! The history was virtually non-existant. AshLin (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking. This version, though minimal, is about Indians in Afghanistan. This version is where the politics of wikipedia editors starts creeping in. By this version, the POV balancing act (by adding POV from both sides) is pretty much in operation. The rest of the article history is mostly a struggle between opposing POV pushing with the poor Afghani Indians forgotten by the wayside. If you ask me, we should revert the article back to this version], bolster the history section a bit, and all go back to editing other stuff. But, I'm not holding my breath. --regentspark (comment) 19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if there is some traction for this idea, I propose going back to this version] and then proceeding with negotiated edits on the article. I.e., no material will be added without first seeking consensus on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support the article going back to that position and it should be strictly be about Indians in Afghanistan wihout all the other stuff which people could move to Inda-Afghanistan relations. AshLin (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The version you are proposing was up for deletion... to fix those issues, this content is bound to get back in. After the complications we do have here now, a better way would be to trim content through this RFC. I had the same point about the statement in negative about Indian troops in Afghanistan, seemed pointy per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The version that was up for deletion was this one. Many of the delete votes referred to the insurgency section as a WP:COATTRACK and numerous keep !voters seemed troubled by the content. My suggested version above is simpler and would be a much better starting point for consensus seeking. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More