WolfStonerRocker (talk | contribs) →Arbitrary break: response |
→Arbitrary break: Reply |
||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
*Out of due respect [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] I will look at your points with some extra consideration (when I have some more time) and re-evaluate them within the scope you have mentioned, but as to the rhetoric that has been used, I don't agree with your comments. My reactions have been accordingly and if I am dealing with the original author (which I only just found this out) then it is more so a POV issue, as far as I'm concerned. I have been emotional about articles I've had AfD'ed myself and understand the feelings one gets when they are questioned and tested. I have not liked the rhetoric used at all, and as to the points raised by [[User:TripWire|TripWire]], they have tried to claim things via using Policy citation remarks that I have consider to have no bearing on my involvement what so ever.<br>To be blunt, when this article actually comes to a review process (which I assume will be required) then I will happily list my thoughts as to each particular point and any concerns about such, if any. I do credit the author for finding both national news media reports on the issue, so don't get me wrong. I won't be accused of anything via the rhetoric that has been used though, hence my comments. I've never had anyone tell me I'm supposed to accord anyone due respect as the original author either, as this is not something I've seen much of, by various editors. I have been respectful and simply responded to the comments made about my contribution and listed my view of what I consider them to be, and to there stated meanings behind such words, as far as I'm concerned.<br>I'm not being [[WP:BIASED]] or attempting to censor anything by the way, I fully expect more than just those of us in this debate to examine the source material though, of which I have stated what I consider most of it to be (though I will alter this based on your recommendations now and review it). I'll especially check the [[WP:NEWSORG]] for their assessed status here, and thank you for pointing this out. I'm not here to have a battleground and do not consider myself to have done so, I have responded to what I consider to be some ill used words regarding my assessment of the article as a whole. Using all this {{WP:xxxx]] is not something that should have been raised to me in the first place. I'm not the one who wrote it. I also think that you have mentioned my comments only, instead of both of us, and if you think that I'm the only one who is being 'over the top' here, then we have a problem. In good regards and with no ill will |
*Out of due respect [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] I will look at your points with some extra consideration (when I have some more time) and re-evaluate them within the scope you have mentioned, but as to the rhetoric that has been used, I don't agree with your comments. My reactions have been accordingly and if I am dealing with the original author (which I only just found this out) then it is more so a POV issue, as far as I'm concerned. I have been emotional about articles I've had AfD'ed myself and understand the feelings one gets when they are questioned and tested. I have not liked the rhetoric used at all, and as to the points raised by [[User:TripWire|TripWire]], they have tried to claim things via using Policy citation remarks that I have consider to have no bearing on my involvement what so ever.<br>To be blunt, when this article actually comes to a review process (which I assume will be required) then I will happily list my thoughts as to each particular point and any concerns about such, if any. I do credit the author for finding both national news media reports on the issue, so don't get me wrong. I won't be accused of anything via the rhetoric that has been used though, hence my comments. I've never had anyone tell me I'm supposed to accord anyone due respect as the original author either, as this is not something I've seen much of, by various editors. I have been respectful and simply responded to the comments made about my contribution and listed my view of what I consider them to be, and to there stated meanings behind such words, as far as I'm concerned.<br>I'm not being [[WP:BIASED]] or attempting to censor anything by the way, I fully expect more than just those of us in this debate to examine the source material though, of which I have stated what I consider most of it to be (though I will alter this based on your recommendations now and review it). I'll especially check the [[WP:NEWSORG]] for their assessed status here, and thank you for pointing this out. I'm not here to have a battleground and do not consider myself to have done so, I have responded to what I consider to be some ill used words regarding my assessment of the article as a whole. Using all this {{WP:xxxx]] is not something that should have been raised to me in the first place. I'm not the one who wrote it. I also think that you have mentioned my comments only, instead of both of us, and if you think that I'm the only one who is being 'over the top' here, then we have a problem. In good regards and with no ill will |
||
::<span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 3px violet ">[[User:Nuro Dragonfly|<span style="color:purple">Nürö</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%"> [[User Talk:Nuro Dragonfly|<span style="color:rose">G'DÄŸ MÄTË</span>]]</span></sup></span> 07:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
::<span style="text-shadow:7px 5px 3px violet ">[[User:Nuro Dragonfly|<span style="color:purple">Nürö</span>]] <sup><span style="font-size:80%"> [[User Talk:Nuro Dragonfly|<span style="color:rose">G'DÄŸ MÄTË</span>]]</span></sup></span> 07:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:: Well, I think your characterisation of mainstream news sources as "tabloid nationalistic propaganda" is problematic. You need to check the policies I have pointed to in the above. Cheers, [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 08:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:07, 2 May 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Infobox
How about replacing the current infobox withspy infobox?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- It'd be too early, after all he's just an alleged spy. sami talk 10:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. But is there a need to declare right in the very first sentence that he was a former Navy officer? I think that too is early.Your thoughts, please.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 11:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep it
It is a very important international development and both the Indian and Pakistani accounts of the story are presented. Please keep this article.--Intellectual123 cool (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
India claims
Folks, please be careful with attributions like "India claims," unless the sources say that. Attributions need to be exact. No WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, so how should '(Indian) Government sources said....' should be attributed?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 15:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just like it says in the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 16:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just like it says in the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I rephrased the lead sentence from "Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian Navy officer arrested in Balochistan" to "Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian national arrested in Balochistan" to make it more neutral, especially since the following sentence cites opposing claims from both the countries. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- After this exercise, replacing infobox military with infobox spy (as discussed above) would be congruous with other articles related to (Indian) nationals arresting over spying. Pinging @TripWire: sami talk 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is the appropriate time to do that. Bogged down response from the Indian govt to claim Yadav, the fact that Pakistan is in possession of solid evidence of him being a spy (as being mentioned in mainstream news), and that India did not actually submit a formal request for consular access to Yadav (in writing), but have created only a media hype around this gives us enough reason to change to infobox spy.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- You would need WP:THIRDPARTY secondary sources to do such labelling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Good thing that you brought in labelling which says it is allowed if "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Now we know that the term used (widely) for describing Yadav is "Spy" by almost all RS. Going by that, like I said earlier, it is the appropriate time to use the Infobox Spy. Less of course, you in your POV, label him differently.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 06:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is the appropriate time to do that. Bogged down response from the Indian govt to claim Yadav, the fact that Pakistan is in possession of solid evidence of him being a spy (as being mentioned in mainstream news), and that India did not actually submit a formal request for consular access to Yadav (in writing), but have created only a media hype around this gives us enough reason to change to infobox spy.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 22:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- After this exercise, replacing infobox military with infobox spy (as discussed above) would be congruous with other articles related to (Indian) nationals arresting over spying. Pinging @TripWire: sami talk 22:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Naela Quadri Baloch
@The Masked Man of Mega Might: Why removing sourced info? You can re-phrase some of the words if necessary, Given that only the last line seems to me a bit copy of the source. WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is no excuse to remove reliably sourced content. I suggest you to do a self-revert. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not happening. I have no opinion on the content. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Then why you reverted me? If you have no opinion on that content. Then why are you even removing it? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Zee source says
World Baloch Women’s Forum president Naela Quadri Baloch on Saturday denied having any information about the alleged 'RAW agent'. She further said India must support the people of Balochistan and stop Pakistan from committing genocide against her people.
You wrote "President of World Baloch Women’s Forum Naela Quadri Baloch' has however, claimed that Pakistan have no information about the alleged RAW agent. She further said India must support the people of Balochistan and stop Pakistan from committing genocide against her people." This is an exact reproduction of the news story and is not permitted on Wikipedia. I've linked to the relevant policies in the edit summary. Diannaa has already provided you with the copyright guidelines in the section User talk:MBlaze Lightning#Wikipedia and copyright on your talk page. Please go through it once again. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)- Apart from the copyvio, I do have a problem with the content. Who is this Baloch? Her word against the words of an Indian Union Minister, DG ISPR, Indian Intelligence Officials and Pakistan's Information Minister? I doubt that her words should have a place wt Wikipedia, even if we consider WP:FRINGE. Going by this, tomorrow you or another editor will try to add content from the mouth of every tommy, dicky and hamesh from both side of the border, and that cant be allowed. BTW, you should know she's an Afgahn trying to champion the cause of Balochs. Funny.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 09:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Zee source says
- Then why you reverted me? If you have no opinion on that content. Then why are you even removing it? MBlaze Lightning -talk! 08:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
The recent WP:NPOV edits need to be discussed. The editor should also refrain from COPYVIO while adding content especially if there's no consensus for the same.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 15:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- What is the WP:NPOV problem here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- For the starters, removing the entire infobox.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- It is clear to me from the edit summary [1] that Ghatus removed the infobox precisely because it didn't represent consensus among reliable sources, i.e., it was against NPOV.
- What else do you have? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- We dont go by personal opinions. A discussion has already been carried out here for why the infobox was in the article. You may like to see that.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 16:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- For the starters, removing the entire infobox.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Tell me which ones you object to and you will be given reasons. Reverted attempts to push Pak PoV as the neutral PoV. As far as the INFOBOX is concerned, it ONLY represents the Pakistani claims,which are "rejected" by Indian authorities. That is why it should never be in the lead section. Do you ave any neutral source to prove him as an Indian spy? You only have Pakistani claims which India rejects. On the contrary, the Iranian President has reacted to it as a rumor. So, go and read rules first.Ghatus (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- First, I would request and suggest you that you need to improve your tone. As this is not how we talk here at Wikipedia. Second, it was decided that in order to keep the article in compliance with other articles related tp Indian spies, the infobox be changed. I didnt see you commenting in that discussion? So, you now by removing it by saying that it is Pakistani POV and without getting consensus for the change simply means that it is indeed you who are pushing the Indian POV.
- No country accepts a spy, so saying that it was "rejected" by Indian carries no value. Rest of the POV that you pushed in the article by adding opinions is also POV pushing. Also, CopyVio-ing the info is taken quite seriously here at Wikipedia. So, why dont you "go and read rules first."?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 17:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have one significant concern here and that is the usage of the codename parameter "monkey" in the infobox. Even if we go with the Pakistani narrative, they only talk about the code phrase "your monkey is with us" being used as a method of communication. Even the accompanying citation, an opinion piece by a blogger (who btw has some excellent points) does not make this claim. This is OR and a very pointy one at that. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. Instead, his cover name 'Mubarik Hussain Patel' should be mentioned.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Man, unless you have at least one neutral source supporting Pak claims, it will remain Pak claim only. You can go to any wiki notice board against me, I will meet you there. Till then, best of luck to you. You just can not push Pakistani claims as neutral facts. You do not have any third party confirmation.Ghatus (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
- Comment - As with nearly anything to do with Indian / Pakistani relations, this has become a POV WP:EDITWAR. Claiming that 'all countries don't acknowledge spys' is also misleading, as far as Neutral POV is concerned. I wasn't in the original debate on the changing of the Info Box from Military to Spy, but if he has not been acknowledged as such by India, and only as a Former Military (Navy) Officer, then I find this disingenuous. There is clearly Indian/Pakistani Nationalist POV being pushed. There is also editing of sections, as with the entire deletion of one, that should not happen without consensus. I will further advice not to delete entire sections, for any reasons, without consensus. This entire article needs further contributions from other Editors on how to move it forward with Neutral POV. I have come here from seeing the post on the ANI page, but I am not Admin I will state. I do however have a Military History background. I think Tripwire has given some good advice though, for both parties to consider until a resolution can be sort. Nuro G'dayMate! 05:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nuro Dragonfly, welcome. The official India claims are here and the Iranian statements are here(Pak source) and here(Indian source). Other Indian sources are here [1][2][3][4]. You are free to mediate. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs)
- Nuro Dragonfly and Ghatus the so called sources for the claim that Iran has rejected the spy scandal as mere rumour do not actually contain any such information. All that they say is that Iran rejected claims that a high level meeting had taken place to discuss the scandal. They actually confirm the scandal with this statement. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nuro Dragonfly, welcome. The official India claims are here and the Iranian statements are here(Pak source) and here(Indian source). Other Indian sources are here [1][2][3][4]. You are free to mediate. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghatus (talk • contribs)
References
- ^ "Rijiju Slams Pakistan for Releasing Doctored Video on Arrested Man". THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS. PTI. 30 March 2016. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
- ^ "Rijiju slams Pak for releasing doctored video on arrested man". Business Standard. PTI. 30 March 2016. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
- ^ "Rijiju slams Pak for releasing doctored video on arrested man". India Today. PTI. 30 March 2016. Retrieved 3 April 2016.
- ^ Iran President Dismisses Pakistan's RAW Spy Claim
- Comment - Various issues that I will outline
A) An official press statement from any Government is most definitely not a reliable source in this case. All governments will behave in such a manner. It claims to have asked for Consular rights, which are being denied by Pakistan. This does not surprise me, because as he is a being detained on charges of espionage, this is the usual behaviour.
B) The Dawn article contains very little in substance at all. It might be considered a 'reputable' newspaper for Pakistani readers in English, but it is badly worded in it's description of events, and the participants actions.
C) The New Indian Express may have much more substance, but I know Propaganda when I read it, and this is shockingly so.
D) Although both article leads are stating the same message; "Rouhani rejects claims of discussion about spying allegations" - they both lead with an obvious Nationalist agenda. Ghatus, You would need to find a non participant journalist from someone like Al Jazeera or the BBC or Routers, etc. FreeatlastChitchat, The articles that you listed links for are all exactly the same article? They all just copies of which ever one is the original version. This is a serious problem, and it is the type of source material that gets an article AfD'ed as completely unreliable.
E) Propaganda Videos are also very murky waters to get involved with. They cannot be relied upon as a true account of the facts. Was hecoursedcoerced? Most probably. Has he been tortured? I will give an qualified, educated, assessment that he has been, which isdammingdamning for the Pakistani arguments.
I realise that your both trying to have this matter out in the public domain, but it is such a Conflicting area to address, International Espionage. It is also Pakistan accusing India. Other than USA/Russian relations or Israeli/Arab relations, nothing is as contentious.The well documented hatred of both Nationalist movements is hard to get past, so most information produced by either party is questionable.My advice is to find some European publication, or Western Journalistic piece, on the matter to use as source material. This can be considered good Third party material. I wasn't going to edit this article really, but I will have another read of it for any improvements I think I can make and let you both know, tmrw after some sleep, what I think can be done to maintain a Neutral Stance. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 15:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nuro Dragonfly, your effort to mediate is quite welcome. However, I am afraid you are engaging in rather too much WP:OR and also straying off-course with controversial statements. Let us keep focused on the topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- If one government's claims are included, the other government's assertions should also be included. We don't care whether they are "true" or not. We don't have any reliable sources that know anything about the matter, and probably never will. All we have are claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 I can understand the spelling mistakes but I considered my points to be very relevant. I can accept that specific individuals will not like having the facts of the Political Status Quo stated as such, but I don't agree that I'm entering WP:OP but mentioning it. Its common knowledge to someone who pays attention to the World Political forums. And to someone like me who specialises in Military Conflicts, it's just a fact. I will however refrain, on your advice, from needing to mention it again, as I will help on the article. I agree, that if their is a Pakistani Government press release, it should be used also, in the interest of fairness. I still don't consider, specifically in such matters of Espionage, that they are reliable sources, as they are by their very nature, propaganda. Still I see your main points and I thank you for the advice. Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments about the style and format....to be added to slowly
To begin with:
- This is what I think is a bit more neutral in the opening
- "...is an Indian National that has been arrested in Balochistan, Pakistan, on 3rd March 2016 over what local authorities have claimed is Illegal entry into Pakistan. Federal authorities have since stated that they are charging the individual with Espionage, further adding that they claim he is an active operative for the Indian Government Agency know as Research and Analysis Wing."
- As to the next part of the heading
- "The Indian Government have stated that he is a former Naval Commissioned Officer, who took premature retirement to pursue a private business venture operating out of Iran. Pakistani Government officials have stated that he is a long time operative of the Indian Government. India maintains that he is not a 'spy' or even working for the Government in any official capacity. India in an official press statement have claimed they have asked for consular access, but have so far been denied this by the Pakistani anthracites."
This is what I think gives a detailed but neutral tone to the opening...
- Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 01:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- On reading the Background section, it is very lite on details, plus has a nonsensical read to it. Their should be more than one paragraph. It also states that he IS an Indian Operative and this is not factual, as the opening of the article has already addressed. Much more specifics about his career and life are required: The Military Branch of the Indian Navy that he worked for needs more details. Then a section on his private career and involvement in business in Iran. Otherwise it reads very poorly, and is using substantive words that are disputed. I will submit a wording I think is useful but the others on this article will need to fill out the bulk.
- On the Arrest section, this is full of WP:POV in the words used. You need to have 'Claimed' or 'Accused' next to so many other words, it's not funny. This needs to be boiled down to become much more concise on the Allegations that Pakistan has made against India. As it is, it read is if all of this has been categorically proven, and it hasn't. If that is not to the liking of anyone, then I will agree that POV is trying to be pushed by parties involved as per the ANI complaint.
- Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 03:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The Activities section starts with a claim that his Passport is fake. Were has this been proven? The Confession section also makes claims that are not proven. The next Headline to a new section has in big bold letters Indian Claims, which is not a neutral stance, unless their is a companion Headline Pakistan Claims. Having both would then require the previous sections, Arrest, Activities & Confession, to be amalgamated into these, and separated accordingly into who CLAIMS what, about what, with any of the source material attached.
- Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 03:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've just watched the 'Video footage' of the Pakistani released 'confession'. I will not be supporting the inclusion of this footage, or to have it mentioned in any fashion, other than to clearly state it is Propaganda by the Pakistani Authorities in trying to further their claims. Such actions by Sate Apparatuses is not what the Wiki is about. It is in contravention to various International agreements on the treatment of persons detained in a foreign country. I would also mention the Geneva Convention, citing his treatment in this case, as a 'suspected' enemy combatant. I don't think WP is a place were furthering the Agendas of a specific nation is appropriate, and to me this is all this is doing, and I consider it abhorrent. Please read my User Page to check my ethnicity. I have no agenda to support either Pakistani or Indian propaganda over the other, only to have a clear and concise article about an ongoing matter, that is quite significant for various other reasons, but is getting very little International attention outside India or Pakistan, which does not make it redundant by any means.
- The other fact is that I can not find a source that is not an Indian or Pakistani URL address, which means that it is questionably biased coverage of the event. I haven't managed to find any source material that is independent of either nation. This is a serious concern. The source material needs very through scrutiny, as most of the articles are mirror images of another article. Both national press organisations are complicit in this. The 'leading' Overtones of all the articles I have perused so far are one eyed, so this is one way counters the biased views of each other, but would need to be very well spelt out as Claims and Counter Claims.
- Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 05:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- EDIT: This is the only Internationl iformation I can cite, and it is little more than a Stub.
- Nürö Drägönflÿ, G'däÿ Mätë! 06:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nuro Dragonfly, Thanks for your analysis. Good work! Here are a couple of references that might help.
- A spy or not a spy?: Kulbhushan Jadhav's trail in India, Catch News, 30 March 2016. (The best I could find on the background of the subject.)
- - This is a similar read, and continues the 'proven' line that is being claimed, though it does have both Pakistani and Indian claims cited. I find it very doubtful that any Intelligence Agent gave such information to a journalist though for this article. Nürö G'däÿ 10:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pakistan Releases Video of Indian Officer, Saying He’s a Spy, The New York Times, 29 March 2016. (This doesn't say anything particularly different from the other sources, but it notes the significance of the "timing.")
- -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nuro Dragonfly, Thanks for your analysis. Good work! Here are a couple of references that might help.
- I think that the best course is to have the sections as thus:
- Lede and opening
Background
Pakistani claims (he has been arrested in Pakistan, and this is why it would go first)
Indian counter claims (I use the word Counter Cliams, because it is what has happened in the course of the events)
Apparent confession (I have stated my concerns about this already)
Current situation and stand-off (with all other points in this section) - Truly I think that this the only way to move it forward, with a Neutral Stance evident to the casual reader of Indian/Pakistani relations.
- Nürö G'däÿ 10:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nuro Dragonfly, Good job.Ghatus (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lede and opening
- One last element is Iran's involvement, or lack of. It would go before the last section, and would need some bulk as opposed to a stub. The Iranian President has been routinely cited as shrugging off the whole affair, but this is significant.
- Nürö G'däÿ
- @ DragonFly, though some of your observations are apt, but I do have concerns regrading following:
- You want to stop at the fact that consular access was not given to Yadav but dont seem to point out that Indian (media) though verbally have mentioned asking consular access but to-date havent done so in writing/formally. So, any such claim cannt be taken at its face value if it is not fallowed by formal correspondence. Governments dont give consular access to alleged spies just becuase a newspapers said so.
- You say that neither confession video should be present (which is agreeable) in the article, nor any reference to it should be made, which is strange. How can the video of Yadav himself cannot find space in the article? You say that the video may be a result of torture, yeah sure, it very well may be, but at the same time you dont mention that during the video Yadav looked healthy, happy, smiling, un-scared and without remorse. Too the extent that the BBC newslink points this fact out. So, if you want to opine that the video might be extracted under duress, you must also mention that Yadav dont seem to be under dress during the video and his body (which is shown in full and he siting comfortably) shows no sign of torture.
- And serioulsy, there is no space for 'official statement' from any of the governments, as they cant be taken as RS.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll clarify for you, because I sense a language barrier, and your written English is using contradictory words.
- "...You want to stop at the fact that consular access was not given to Yadav but dont seem to point out that Indian (media) though verbally have mentioned asking consular access but to-date havent done so in writing/formally. So, any such claim cannt be taken at its face value if it is not fallowed by formal correspondence. Governments dont give consular access to alleged spies just becuase a newspapers said so."
You misunderstand my meaning. I don't want to stop at anything. I'm pointing out that the Official Indian Government Statement (press release) says that Pakistan has not responded to the request by India for consular access. The rest of your comment is POV. - "..You say that neither confession video should be present (which is agreeable) in the article, nor any reference to it should be made, which is strange. How can the video of Yadav himself cannot find space in the article? You say that the video may be a result of torture, yeah sure, it very well may be, but at the same time you dont mention that during the video Yadav looked healthy, happy, smiling, un-scared and without remorse. Too the extent that the BBC newslink points this fact out. So, if you want to opine that the video might be extracted under duress, you must also mention that Yadav dont seem to be under dress during the video and his body (which is shown in full and he siting comfortably) shows no sign of torture."
This is ALL your POV. I have extensive knowledge of such matters but this is also considered a POV, and as such neither you or me can categorically say if he has been tortured or not. I object to the video being attached to the article. What I said was that their is specific Geneva Convention rules being broken by Pakistan posting a Confession to the media. It does not matter why. ANY reference to the so called confession is POV and is also PROPAGANDA, so if it is to be included in the article it requires to be stated very clearly that it is not a verified source of information. To put it very simply, it is torture and duress to make any Foreign Combatant make a confession. WP does not support such actions by any state apparatus. - "..And serioulsy, there is no space for 'official statement' from any of the governments, as they cant be taken as RS."
If you want to omit the Indian Press Statement that's fine, because I consider them a biased POV anyway, but in the interest of Neutrality, finding the corresponding Pakistani Press Statement would be required. The fact India has released one and Pakistan has not (to my knowledge) is suspicious. Again, all borderline POV also.
The entire article needs to be rewritten IMO, as an outsider to the issue at large. The INFO BOX needs to be removed or rewritten, as it contains information that has not been confirmed or proven. Any suggestion that it is factual is a POV.
Yadav has been confirmed as an EX-Naval Officer by the Indian authorities, and this is verified information as such. The addition of the passport names claimed to have been found by the Pakistani authorities, and then by the Pakistani media, are most definitely not proven claims.
Also, I'll be blunt, the way you have made your comments to my suggestions have a very large Pakistani bias to them TripWire, as you seam to be accepting the Pakistani version of events as self evident and true, which they are not, because this is not proven yet.
This entire incident is about ESPIONAGE and EVERY single word in the article is a claim and therefore is not a fact, with very few exceptions.- I will happily rewrite the entire article if you want if included on WP, but there is a serious amount of un-confirmed claims being made in the article, and as such, is a biased POV as far as I'm concerned, and this needs to be addressed.
- Nürö G'däÿ 00:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am not confirming or denying anything nor am I saying that the article in its present form is written properly. I do agree that the article may be re-written. All I did by replying to you was pointing out certain loopholes in your suggestions, that's all. Because as you think my comment has a "huge" Pakistani bias, I do also think that, irrespective of you fully trying to be unbiased, still your comments do display a ting of Indian POV. I may be wrong, though. I am in a hurry, so please wait out and I will try to respond to your comment above in detail soon.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 11:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I thought that I would reply to your comment in detail, but after going through it, it's unfortunate that I have to refer you to go through WP:NOTTRUTH instead. And I am sorry if wikipedia polices does not allow you to voice your opinions and add WP:OR to articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll not make any judgements. As to the tinge of any Indian POV, the largest problem with this topic is that it about Espionage. Between India and Pakistan. It will inevitably be slanted slightly one way or the other. I was asked to look at the article as a whole to help improve a neutral POV. I've given my summary as to how I think that can be achieved. The biggest concern for me as Humanitarian is the confession and I have outlined that multiple times. As I have previously stated, I'm Australian and have no vested interest in the National agendas of either country. Except Cricket. I like Cricket also, and want Australia to win when we play each other, but that's sport, not Espionage.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @TripWire: It is normally not enough to refer to a policy or an essay in a debate, unless you are trying to brush off an absolute beginner. You also need to explain how it applies to the situation. You might think it is obvious, but the others may not agree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Out of due diligence I refreshed myself on the policies raised. WP:VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH (and to clarify this point, Threshold) is exactly the issue with the article, IMO. I haven't added any WP:OR, so I do not see the point in raising this, unless it is to refer to way the article is already written. If anything, WP:NPOV is the point I'm raising with this article. I'm not a new comer, although I had to start a new account after 18 months hiatus, because I couldn't remember my email or password or user name from my previous one. But having said that, for all intensive purposes my user name has only been back 6 months I think...
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Out of due diligence I refreshed myself on the policies raised. WP:VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH (and to clarify this point, Threshold) is exactly the issue with the article, IMO. I haven't added any WP:OR, so I do not see the point in raising this, unless it is to refer to way the article is already written. If anything, WP:NPOV is the point I'm raising with this article. I'm not a new comer, although I had to start a new account after 18 months hiatus, because I couldn't remember my email or password or user name from my previous one. But having said that, for all intensive purposes my user name has only been back 6 months I think...
- @TripWire: It is normally not enough to refer to a policy or an essay in a debate, unless you are trying to brush off an absolute beginner. You also need to explain how it applies to the situation. You might think it is obvious, but the others may not agree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll not make any judgements. As to the tinge of any Indian POV, the largest problem with this topic is that it about Espionage. Between India and Pakistan. It will inevitably be slanted slightly one way or the other. I was asked to look at the article as a whole to help improve a neutral POV. I've given my summary as to how I think that can be achieved. The biggest concern for me as Humanitarian is the confession and I have outlined that multiple times. As I have previously stated, I'm Australian and have no vested interest in the National agendas of either country. Except Cricket. I like Cricket also, and want Australia to win when we play each other, but that's sport, not Espionage.
- I thought that I would reply to your comment in detail, but after going through it, it's unfortunate that I have to refer you to go through WP:NOTTRUTH instead. And I am sorry if wikipedia polices does not allow you to voice your opinions and add WP:OR to articles.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am not confirming or denying anything nor am I saying that the article in its present form is written properly. I do agree that the article may be re-written. All I did by replying to you was pointing out certain loopholes in your suggestions, that's all. Because as you think my comment has a "huge" Pakistani bias, I do also think that, irrespective of you fully trying to be unbiased, still your comments do display a ting of Indian POV. I may be wrong, though. I am in a hurry, so please wait out and I will try to respond to your comment above in detail soon.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 11:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nuro Dragonfly, since you are a third country editor, you are asked to make the necessary changes in the article as discussed.Ghatus (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but I didnt know that you were given additional responsibilities by Wikipedia to distribute free-passes to 'third country editors' (whatever that means).—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 22:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
OK so I have been editing the article on my sandbox to get it to a nuetral POV. It is still a work in progress as I am away on business at present. I will be returning to it in about 3 days. It has had ALL cites removed, because the ones used, in the large part, were NOT very credible at all. Tabloid stubs are not credible sources, nor is some of the longer articles as the amount of Nationalism and therefore biased POV is shocking. The BBC and the New York Times were just acceptable. Other third party source material will need to be found. Otherwise it will have 2 sorces as cites. The repeatative nature of the article is being cleanen up. It will be half as long at most compared to the original. EVERYTHING is a CLAIM with the exception of the admission of India to Yadav being an Ex-Naval Officer in the Engineering Branch who retired early. India media states one pov whilst Pakistan media states the opposite and vic versa. It is ridiculous in the terms of finding a consensus about usable data. I will do my best.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 06:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thnks for your effort, but before making any changes you first have to establish here that the sources you consider to be unreliable are actually unreliable. Going by your understanding, almost all of the Wikipedia articles will have its sources removed because they quoted claims. Whether it is a claim, truth, a fact or otherwise, if it is supported / quoted by an RS, it will have space here at Wikipedia provided it is mentioned as such in the article and is not presented as a fact, if it is not. A fact is to mentioned as a fact, a claim is to be mentioned (specifically) as a claim, a fringe theory is to be mentioned as a such - that's how wikipedia works.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, this entire article is a claim, end of story (with the exception of India confirming he is an Ex-Naval Officer). It's about Espionage, therefore it will probably always be a claim. The sources provided, as I stated, are Tabloid Nationalist Propaganda, on both sides. That is not reliable source material. Some will pass RS, but as you have outlined what is required by the article to state as much, is completely missing so far. Not a single bit of this article has anything that can be called a fact. Sorry.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Where did I say that the article was based on facts? Wikipedia does not reproduce facts, only what is published in RS. Please dont twist my words. What you call Tabloid Nationalist Propaganda are used as RS on almost all Indo-Pak related articles, why this selective attitude in this case? Like I said, Wikipedia is and will be based on sourced material, not on what you think is correct or wrong. Till now, even after this lengthy debate, you have failed to provide which policy does the article exactly violates? So till the time you do that, you keep editing the article in your sanbox, and I'd keep thanking you for it. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 00:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry if that is how it sounds to you, it is not my intention. I'm not basing anything on what I think, I'm stating the source material is not reliable, as it has been said about a lot of other source material that shows up on WP. Please don't confuse my intentions, or misread my words. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, I was asked to mediate this article, that is what I'm doing.
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 01:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Like I have said earlier, first you need to show that why the source you think are not RS, as almost all of the sources used in the article are indeed RS - the same are being used in almost every Indo-Pak related article. Second, I have gone through your edit (which you self-reverted) and all I can say, with due apology, is that it's sheer POV. Third, no one has asked you for mediating this article, sorry, wikipedia does not work like this as it's open to all and everyone, and no single editor can claims its ownership. Fourth, as I have requested earlier, before making any changes, you need to provide the policy which the current state of the article violates, till now, you havent shown any - all you have said has merely been you opinion, which sadly Wikipedia does not allow.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 01:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 01:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry if that is how it sounds to you, it is not my intention. I'm not basing anything on what I think, I'm stating the source material is not reliable, as it has been said about a lot of other source material that shows up on WP. Please don't confuse my intentions, or misread my words. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it, I was asked to mediate this article, that is what I'm doing.
- Where did I say that the article was based on facts? Wikipedia does not reproduce facts, only what is published in RS. Please dont twist my words. What you call Tabloid Nationalist Propaganda are used as RS on almost all Indo-Pak related articles, why this selective attitude in this case? Like I said, Wikipedia is and will be based on sourced material, not on what you think is correct or wrong. Till now, even after this lengthy debate, you have failed to provide which policy does the article exactly violates? So till the time you do that, you keep editing the article in your sanbox, and I'd keep thanking you for it. Thanks.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 00:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 00:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, this entire article is a claim, end of story (with the exception of India confirming he is an Ex-Naval Officer). It's about Espionage, therefore it will probably always be a claim. The sources provided, as I stated, are Tabloid Nationalist Propaganda, on both sides. That is not reliable source material. Some will pass RS, but as you have outlined what is required by the article to state as much, is completely missing so far. Not a single bit of this article has anything that can be called a fact. Sorry.
- Thnks for your effort, but before making any changes you first have to establish here that the sources you consider to be unreliable are actually unreliable. Going by your understanding, almost all of the Wikipedia articles will have its sources removed because they quoted claims. Whether it is a claim, truth, a fact or otherwise, if it is supported / quoted by an RS, it will have space here at Wikipedia provided it is mentioned as such in the article and is not presented as a fact, if it is not. A fact is to mentioned as a fact, a claim is to be mentioned (specifically) as a claim, a fringe theory is to be mentioned as a such - that's how wikipedia works.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic exchange
|
---|
Is this a joke? Are you seriously speaking to me in such a manner? Wake up to yourself.
|
- I am not sure why there is such an inflamed exchange here. Nuro Dragonfly, I admit that you are politically neutral on this issue. However, to be neutral in the Wikipedia sense, you need to cover all the reliable sources without censoring them on the grounds of WP:BIASED. I think most of the sources used here are mainstream WP:NEWSORG sources and, so, are "reliable" for news. Most of them have Wikipages and you can check. It is not appropriate to label them tabloid nationalist propaganda. We should not use op-eds of course. Secondly, TripWire did indeed create most of the content of this article. He should be accorded due respect for that. At the same time, you have also volunteered to provide a valuable mediatory role. I respect you for it too. Allow me to collapse the off-topic exchanges. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Out of due respect Kautilya3 I will look at your points with some extra consideration (when I have some more time) and re-evaluate them within the scope you have mentioned, but as to the rhetoric that has been used, I don't agree with your comments. My reactions have been accordingly and if I am dealing with the original author (which I only just found this out) then it is more so a POV issue, as far as I'm concerned. I have been emotional about articles I've had AfD'ed myself and understand the feelings one gets when they are questioned and tested. I have not liked the rhetoric used at all, and as to the points raised by TripWire, they have tried to claim things via using Policy citation remarks that I have consider to have no bearing on my involvement what so ever.
To be blunt, when this article actually comes to a review process (which I assume will be required) then I will happily list my thoughts as to each particular point and any concerns about such, if any. I do credit the author for finding both national news media reports on the issue, so don't get me wrong. I won't be accused of anything via the rhetoric that has been used though, hence my comments. I've never had anyone tell me I'm supposed to accord anyone due respect as the original author either, as this is not something I've seen much of, by various editors. I have been respectful and simply responded to the comments made about my contribution and listed my view of what I consider them to be, and to there stated meanings behind such words, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not being WP:BIASED or attempting to censor anything by the way, I fully expect more than just those of us in this debate to examine the source material though, of which I have stated what I consider most of it to be (though I will alter this based on your recommendations now and review it). I'll especially check the WP:NEWSORG for their assessed status here, and thank you for pointing this out. I'm not here to have a battleground and do not consider myself to have done so, I have responded to what I consider to be some ill used words regarding my assessment of the article as a whole. Using all this {{WP:xxxx]] is not something that should have been raised to me in the first place. I'm not the one who wrote it. I also think that you have mentioned my comments only, instead of both of us, and if you think that I'm the only one who is being 'over the top' here, then we have a problem. In good regards and with no ill will
- Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 07:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I think your characterisation of mainstream news sources as "tabloid nationalistic propaganda" is problematic. You need to check the policies I have pointed to in the above. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)