Talk:Kulbhushan Jadhav/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

You may amend the text, please.  sami  ^talk 19:22, 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)

• 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)

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)

WP:NPOV & COPYVIO edits

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)

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 . 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)

I think Freeatlast is right. What is called a "rumour" is the idea that there were discussions about it between Pakistan and Iran. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

References

• 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 he coursedcoerced? Most probably. Has he been tortured? I will give an qualified, educated, assessment that he has been, which is dammingdamning 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.")

- This is bit more neutral in its synopsis of the events, and I agree is poignant about the timing, which is significant to the article. Nürö G'däÿ 10:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Off-topic exchange

Your attempts to use all this rhetoric is pointless. Re-Read the ANI and this Talk Page. I have outlined, as far as I will, what the case is. I was asked to help sort out the problems with this article. I reverted because I felt I had jumped the gun on updating the entire article actually, not for any other reason. I am not using my POV, for the last time. I have looked at all the source material and I do not consider it to reliable, in the main. Others, not you, can judge this to make a consensus and we can have that debate properly, as the two of us is not enough of a debate. You have numerous time used language that has the over-tones of someone who is supportive of the Pakistani POV in this matter, whether or not you even realise this, in which case either your don't, or you do and don't care. Your continued appraisal of this entire conversation is disingenuous in its summary of my words and attempted actions on the matter as a whole. I have one point of view about the inclusion of the Confession due to my understanding of Humanitarian expectations and the Geneva Convention, and your response to this was what I would expect a member of some Nationalist Agency to give, and I find that quite disturbing an attitude I will state bluntly, not from an Editor with the goal of creating an Encyclopaedia based on consensus. Also for the last time stop asserting that I have some Ownership agenda with this article. I have other work here to do and consider this as part of helping WP in the whole, and it will be up to other Editors, not you or me, to help make a consensus about the quality and inclusion of material in the article. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 02:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC) You need to read WP:NPA. You need to provide proof before you allege what you have alleged above. Just because I am challenging you POV-ed edits, it does not allow you to subject me, in addition to this very article of your personal opinions. Allow me to reiterate: Prove that the sources are not RS - as a starter giving vague arguments like "I have looked at the source material" wont do it. Discuss each source and provide a reason so to why do you think they are unreliable. For the umpteenth time, a source does not become unreliable just because you say so. Point out which precise policy does the article in its current state violates - just because you think or consider that it not taste like the way you want it to taste like wont do it. Read other related article under the "Indian Spies" or other spy-related category and may be you would understand how a similar article should be worded. Stop pretending as if you alone are here to do a favour to Wikipedia by editing this article. You dont need to do it, afterall other volunteers have contributed to this article too.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 03:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC) I take serious affront and insult to your tone and your appraisal. "..Stop pretending as if you alone are here to do a favour to Wikipedia.." Is this a joke? Are you seriously speaking to me in such a manner? Wake up to yourself. All of your other points I have outlined that when I have the time and energy to contribute to a dabate I will bother to do so. This is becoming more of the same reason you got mentioned on the ANI page in the first place. And for some reason I'm surprised... Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 03:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC) I find nothing offensive in the statement you have referred. I ave merely pointed out your behavior which you yourself have stated. However, what I find offensive is you calling me a nationalistic or its other variations despite the fact that it not me who is trying to edit the article, but YOU! It is indeed surprising that you are the one adding/deleting/changing the article's content, and all I have done so far is to ask you to point out the problem with the article in its current state while quoting the issues with the article in terms of Wikipeida's polices and not mere opinions, but instead you attack me? BTW, I dont know which ANI are you talking about. What I do know is that this debate cant go any further if you are not going to respond to my (very simple) queries as mentioned above, and instead subject me to personal attacks. I am quite inclined to take this matter to ANI myself as you are, despite repeated requests, unable to provide a valid reason so as to why do you consider this article is not acceptable in its current form. This is irrespective of he fact that building Wikipedia is a continuous process and improvements are always welcomed, provided they are supported by tangible arguments, Wikipedia's policies and valid reasons, and not just personal opinions which have been based on someone's, for instance, understanding of Geneva convention.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 04:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Let me be blunt, I'll provide such data when I fell appropriate to do so. I am slowly dealing with the article, it is not my priority. You are hiding behind your policy comments as a means to use rhetoric that I find pointless, hence my rebuttals as such. When I have something constructive to add I will. You have been badgering me with inane issues and I've stupidly responded. My comments are not for me to prove to your liking, for the umpteenth time. You have not helped this article in any way as far as I'm concerned, except to complain and badger, instead of rewriting it yourself. If you feel we need ANI that's your call to make, not mine, as I have outlined my view of your contributions to this debate previously and I make no apologies for doing so, as that is how you come across to me, whether your intentionally doing so or not. Nürö G'DÄŸ MÄTË 05:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Ref: "You have not helped this article in any way as far as I'm concerned, except to complain and badger" Consider this my last reply to this futile discussion. Just so that you know 14% of the totals edits on this article were made by me. I dont like to flaunt this but as I see that you have made ZERO contribution to this article and have just "complained and badgered" instead, you need to be confronted with facts. Happy editing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 05:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• 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 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)

I base my comments on the numerous amount of times I have had it said to me, by other editors, about the source material that I have tried to use, in my earlier stages of joining WP and editing. As I said I will put some effort into looking at what you have said to me and reassess my thoughts of them. But I will for the umpteenth time reiterate my comments concisely; the majority of the news articles that are listed as source material in the article, irrelevant of who put them in or from what country they originate (Indian or Pakistani), are extremely biased in the words used to describe the situation by the journalists; the format and grammar is not well written at all; the citations made are sometimes completely Plagiarised from another source, who also has Plagiarised someone else's source, etc, etc; conflicting statements by the same people in separate, individual news releases is prevalent and of concern. This is all off the top of my head without even going back into the material, which I will do again soon.
I'm sorry if you all as Indians and Pakistanis have been offended by how I have refereed to them, but as an objective outsider who has read these publications for the first time now, that is exactly how they read to a native English speaker such as myself and are seriously poor journalism in the main. Maybe I have too high a standard about such matters coming from Australia (and don't think I don't have the same opinion of numerous media in my country please, because I do), so out of respect to the processes and to you all involved in this, I will devote some time to collating my source material concerns and to reassess them with a new eye towards contributing something positive and useful to the situation. Again, I'm not basing my comments on anything other than how it reads to me.

PS: I have ignored the edited Off-Topic box that has been attached above, as I don't see any point in the both of us continuing our argument further, and as such I have not read it. With regards..

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 12:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, here is a news story on how the media covered it [2]. I agree that the quality of the news coverage varies widely. I guess those of that have to read these sources kind of know instinctively how to ignore the chaff and get to the main information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

See, that was a concise rundown of how I have viewed the situation from the very beginning, and is what I was trying to say from the start.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

edit warring

@Ghatus and TripWire: Please stop going back and forth. You both will end up blocked if you continue the same pattern of edits from before. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I just call a spade a spade. If it's claim, it's claim. Claim can not be converted into facts.Ghatus (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Content disputes are to be sorted out here on the talk page. Resuming the edit war right after the full protection has expired will be met with immediate blocks. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@TMMMM thanks for bringing this up, but then why are you pointing me out? I think it is me who is/was discussing content disputes with Dragon Fly and quite a few other editors right here at the talk, or did you not see my inputs above? I dont find Ghatus doing the same, nor do I see that he is inclined to carryout a discussion while displaying such a condescending tone/attitude. Moreover, it was he who, out of nowhere, made large edits which had no consensus, but you find it convenient to measure me along with him? This is not taken well.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on rewrite

Please put your comments on Nuro Dragonfly's rewrite here

• Nuro Dragonfly, you have done a great job which is making sense. If your version is not accepted here in this chaos, it has to be taken then to arbitration. I am also thinking of the same. A single user can not own an article or lock a version of an article indefinitely.Ghatus (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration, why not?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Nuro Dragonfly, I think the basic structure of your rewrite is right. It is hard to do a more thorough review until you add the footnotes with sources. I am concerned however that the mention of Geneva Conventions may be WP:OR (WP:SYNTHESIS). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll state very seriously that the Geneva Convention is nothing like WP:OR, in any way; its correctly using the facts of the matter at hand; Yadhav has been portrayed, via a video broadcast, as an Enemy Combatant of Pakistan, to a room full of journalists. This is literally against the rules.

I agree that the policy of WP:SYNTHESIS would need to be carefully monitored, used appropriately, and is a valid concern.

My point about it is this; the article does not word the information in correct WP policy parameters, but uses the 'confession' extremely inappropriately in the context, and the wording, as it is written so far. That's my main concern, not that is shouldn't be mentioned at all. It has happened; it is part of the story as a whole.

WP policy doesn't have a clear cut statement on this sort of information, and how it is used appropriately, that I've managed to find, other than that when a consensus is formed, by editors who care to debate it, it can be used accordingly to said consensus formed, which of course is our primary policy here, so that is the next step with that part of the article for sure.

As for cite entries, that is a more complicated matter. I felt that there was to many citations anyway, and it could be trimmed down quite substantially, but still have information cited well enough for our standards.

Its a messy topic and has real problems with it. Were not discussing WWII NAZI's who have since passed away 30 years ago, were talking about living, current people and issues. The fact of who has captured who is irrelevant to me; in reverse I would be concerned about the same thing and comment exactly the same.

Regards..

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 12:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

2nd Arbitrary break

OK so I have been reviewing this matter with a new eye as requested to do so. One thing that needs to be understood is the proper meaning of the word Propaganda, so if you misinterpret or misunderstand the word, please go and look it up.

review of sources

1 - this by NDTV is a stub. Without the video attached it isn't really achieving much, and I don't think that a source should rely on video that can be removed by the broadcaster as reliable source material. I wouldn't be supporting this source 2 - this, in Tribune is hyperbole, whilst contradicting itself when, very insincerely, trying to sound at all neutral, sometimes in the same sentences, which is shocking journalism. The only good part of this source is that it has tried to cover a large amount of the information that is being thrown around. The editorial is blatantly pro-Pakistan's version of events, and is clearly sanctioning the State propaganda that is being used by official sources. That is called Nationalism, which I don't condone or support. I wouldn't be supporting this source. 3 - this by GeoTV is slightly better written in its content, but is even more of a mouth piece for the Military and Government stated 'evidence' in this matter, and makes some very unbelievable claims. Not supportive. 4 - this, in The Wire is well written journalism, it makes a strong effort to keep the wording in the realm it should be in, that of a informative narrative, not Nationalistic rant. I support this. 5 - this, in Dawn attempts to give an editorial instead of a governmental speech, but is still very poorly written. I'm 50/50 with this one. 6 - this, in NYT may be from the New York Times but is little more than a stub with little substance other than to reiterate Pakistani officials views and not also include Indian ones, which I find extremely suspicious and very poor journalism. I was initially supportive of this source because of who it is, but with further analysis and rereading, it is little more than a reprint of other Pakistani sources already on the reflist. I'm mainly un-supportive of this now, but it is the NYT, which caries some weight. Problem is, it's not written by a foreign correspondent. 7 - this, in Dawn is once more just blatant Nationalistic Propaganda, not journalism. It contentiously uses words that try's to make everything sound as if everything that has been said by the Pakistani Authorities is all true and self evident. That's not journalism, that's propaganda and Nationalism. I'll not support this source. 8 - this, in New Indian Express is poorly written. It doesn't cover much, or accurately written, information. I'm 50/50 with this one. 9 - this, in Tribune is again very poor attempts at journalism, and reads as nothing more than a government mouthpiece, which is not a reliable source. Not supportive either. 10 - this, in Dawn at least attempts to sound like a journalistic piece of work, but still makes poor reading. I'd support this article though. 11 - this, in BBC News from the BBC is nearly useless as far as I'm concerned. Again as like the NYT, they are the only Foreign Correspondent news outlets covering the story but have used local sources and are poorly written. As with the NYT, only because of who they are do I except their inclusion as being relative. 12 - this, in Tribune is more of the same vitriol of hardline Nationalistic writing. It represents itself to know the truth, instead of using much more appropriate language. I don't support this attempt at journalism. 13 - this, in Indian Express is at least a well written and balanced piece. It has flaws but very little. I would support this source. 14 - this, in Dawn is also rhetoric, not journalism. It might be considered by others as a reliable source, but not by me. It also just rehashes other sources and is not required. 15 - this, in Indian Express is poorly written and not required, as its covered in other articles. 16 - this, in NYT is a repeat and shouldn't be included. 17 - this, by Zee News is a stub that raises other issue, about US Pakistan relations, more than anything else. Not supportive. 18 - this, in New Indian Express is also blatantly nationalistic about the matters and doesn't try to be informative. I wouldn't support this source. 19 - this, in Ahmedabad Mirror makes very unsubstantiated claims, that included apparent Insider sources and ex-intelligence officials 'speaking' to them, etc. Not good enough at all. 20 - this, in Dawn plagiarises the previous, poorly. Not supportive, as I don't think we are allowed to include plagiarism on WP as a source. 21 - this, by Geo TV is another example of he Geneva Convention being broken by Pakistan in airing a 'Confession' in the first place. It is little more than a stub and does nothing but support the Illegal use of such actions by any government. 22 - this, in Business Standard is what you'd expect from the other side of the argument. Badly written and not more than a stub, and as such not good source material. 23 - this, in India Today literally Plagiarises the previous, without citing the fact. 24 - this, in New Indian Express is a repeat??? 25 - this is the Indian Government official release on the matter. Exactly as any other government would behave. I'm supportive as it is the only official document used in the whole article. 26 - this, in Tribune is once more nothing less than Nationalistic Propaganda by an apparent media outlet. Not supportive. 27 - this, by 92 News site is blocked by my security apparatuses on my PC so I don't support it for a breach of due diligence in knowing what you can and can't put up on WP. 28 - this, in Tribune is once again extremely bad attempts at journalism, that is clearly Nationalist propaganda. Locations of sources added - Kautilya3

I have outlined Propaganda, Nationalism, claims presented as facts, irrelevant inclusions of so-called source material that bare little relevance, blatantly taking sides, etc, etc, etc. Now I have re-read the biased WP section and the other relevant parts on that page, for diligences sake, and as far as I'm concerned a large portion of this material is extremely UN-reliable. My initial opinion has changed little, with some exceptions. The fact that the Torture/Confession/Interrogation, whatever you call it, video is used at all is reprehensible, and its inclusion is shocking, not to mention against International Law, in some ways. It is also, once again, against the Geneva Convention on the treatment of Suspected Enemy Combatants, let alone civilians, to publish or use at all in the manner that has been done so.

The article on Yadhav is very poorly written and basses itself on information that is conjectured to the extreme and doesn't carry much weight in reality. It makes claims as if they are facts, and yes I'm well aware of the policy regarding this, that doesn't change anything, as far as this article is in need of AfD, or completely rewritten, based on the said WP policies. It is not a notable event outside the subcontinent at all, let alone in the region as a whole, by the material available. The source material is compromised in various ways I've already outlined. The fact that Tripwire tried to Justify and Defend the 'Confession' in the way that they have done, by thinking it was a good choice of words by them to say "he looks fine and comfortable, and doesn't look beaten up, etc" is shocking to come across another human being saying such things, about such a subject, which makes it clear to me they have little regard, or barely any understanding, of how such matter are considered and treated by the International Criminal Court at the Hague. I find it nothing less than them wanting to push a Pakistani Nationalist Agenda onto others, in the way they have reacted to my concerns, and their apparent misunderstanding of the word Propaganda, and what it actually is. I make my statements assessed on the facts before me, nothing else. I do not accept that I'm am using personal POV, I very seriously think that this is an issue that needs addressing with more urgency than has been.

I do not consider the participants of the article to have found anything near a neutral POV, and it is barely evident of even trying. Once again, yes I have re-read WP policies and I do not think that I am erring in my assessments, based on those facts, and I do believe that I have used the correct expressions to convey this, without going into emotional ranting on my behalf, and if others read it as such by me then I can only state that I have done my best to use the appropriate words without using the type of commentary that I would like, I can tell you that. Some of you may think that this is nothing to be concerned about and that its just an article, but Torture (yes I do think that the confession is such) is not a laughing matter and I think we all should consider it the responsibility of WP to uphold certain standards.

I've made my points and stated my response to the article as a whole and I know leave it to others to debate, as unless I'm specifically asked to contribute, I don't consider this article something that should be on WP until it is completely rewritten in its entirety. I wont be commenting further unless asked to do so. I don't require a summary of others thoughts on my comments unless you seriously want to debate the actual content issue I've raised, if not then leave me out of it, please, because I have nothing left to say. And if others think that I have not managed to get passed some perceived bias of my own, well I can't change that, because I feel that I have tried extremely hard to keep this about the evidence before me, and nothing more. To Finalise, I have used the policies we have here on WP to make my judgement on this article, for the umpteenth time, and I still call it as I see it.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 12:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: Any editor can edit any article including bold rewrites when appropriate. You don't need to be "asked" to do so. You have explained above the rationale for rewriting it, and I don't see anybody contesting it. I didn't carefully look through your long review of the sources, but I agree that all the sources basically report the views of the two Governments with very little additional information of their own. If that is the point you are trying to make, I would say it is rather obvious. I will put my comments on your rewrite below. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Whereas bold edits are encouraged, being bold does not mean to take ownership of the article and carryout a total overhaul as per your own personal opinion. It also does not mean to rubbish the input of others altogether while doubting the RS and other citations as per ones own understanding. WP:RECKLESS is the case in point. The argument is simple, if an RS says so, it gets a place in the article. One wants to attribute it to the source, he should do it. Care must also be taken not to present claims as facts, and the current state of the article is follows this to quite and extent. Giving undue weight to something, let's say, reemphasis/embold/highlight a simple fact (like all the text is a claim from both sides) would mean the editor is crossing the thin line into the muddied waters of POV-pushing. If the text says that something is being claimed as per the cited source, there is no need to further say it 10 times more that it is a claim. It's not rocket science which require explanations as is being done by Ghautus.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire: - Once again, YOU are trying to claim something that I have EXPRESSLY stated is actually what YOU are doing, in all of the points you have raised. YOU have not followed any of these policies, at all. YOU keep pointing fingers at all the other editors on here to PUSH your POV ONLY into the article. YOU keep mentioning policies that are what YOU need to learn, not me or anyone else. YOU are the one that has claimed ownership, not me. I haven't even edited it yet, I've been having the required Talk Page debate, nothing more. YOU need to learn the difference. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Enough is said and done, now come point by point

First Issue - Lead

The lead claims that Mr. Yadav was arrested in Balochistan. This is totally a Pakistani claim. Indian claim is that he was abducted from Iran.Indian Press statement So, both claims are to be presented in the lead.Ghatus (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus if we are going to engage in good faith editing the first thing we should do is avoid "sneaky tactics" as you just used. The statement does not claim that he was abducted in Iran, it says that there is a "possibility" that he may have been abducted in Iran. Furthermore there are numerous "INDIAN" sources which say that he may have "been lured to balochistan" and then arrested there. So the Indian claim is that he was arrested in Balochistan and they further say that he "may have been lured" or "may have been abducted". Next time you comment here, try to get the facts straight first please. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

In addition to getting his facts straight, I'll also suggest that he tone it down and learn how to engage in a civilized discourse. He has been requested, advised and told about this numerous times before.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat I have undone your last revert, as you have violated WP:POV blatantly with your comments, which read: "..the Indian source is just lying, check the talk page..". Unless you have some special insight that the rest of us don't have, do not do such things please. You will be mentioned on the ANI for this, I am informing you.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 23:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Pak claimed that Yadav was arrested in Iran. India OFFICIALLY rejected that and talked about his abduction from Iran. Both claims are to be there in the language they are. You are passing Pak claims as facts. Have you even mentioned Indian OFFICIAL claim there in the lead? It's a clear PoV which is to be corrected. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, this phrase "sneaky tactics" used by you is noted as personal attack and would be taken at the appropriate forum.Ghatus (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@ User:Nuro Dragonfly the issue of Rouhani's comments has already been resolved, and I have replied to your ANI thread. And yes I do have special insight because I take the time to actually read the articles that POV newspapers publish instead of merely looking at their headlines. @Ghatus India has not said OFFICIALLY that he WAS ABDUCTED from Iran, they have said there is a POSSIBILITY that he may have abducted. The OFFICIAL CLAIM by India remains that he was arrested in Baluchistan. If you cannot understand what the word "possibly" means then google translate is that a way. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What's your problem? The word "possibly" is clearly used. And, this is the official statement. Indian NEVER confirmed that he was arrested from B'stan. BTW, even there are two claims by Pakistani authorities regarding the place of "arrest".Ghatus (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Issue - Infobox

These are only Pak claims in the Infobox - a)"Service:Intelligence", b)"Active:2003—2016", c)"Years of service:1987—", d)"Rank:Commander".

a) - India denies that he was an intellegence officer. b) & c) - India claimed that he is not active and retired in early 2000s. d) - India denies him to be a commander. The inflammations there in the Infobox are solely based on Pakistani claims. Ghatus (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus I think we should have two tiered section in the infobox (I am not sure if that is possible but that is the best layout). If there is only one tier available we can write (Pakistani Claim) and (INDIAN claim) after controversial sections. And if (ever) we find a neutral source we can write (neutral) source FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Official statement

This is not understandable. Kautaliya3, why would you ask me for gaining consensus for (1) removing something [claimed to have been arrested] which already does not have consensus for its addition and (2) for something for which [official statement] discussion has already been carried and no objection has been raised. I think you need to participate in the section concerning this issue, which is already under discussion before telling others to gain consensus. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

1 - Because there is no consensus among reliable sources that he was `arrested'. The Indian sources are saying that he may have been abducted from Iran, and Iran is investigating whether he crossed the border at all. So, until we have better information, it is a claim. Ghatus raised the issue above, and I don't believe that he has been answered. Since India has contested it, you can't say it as if it is a fact unless you have a watertight source. I don't see any such.

2 - I don't know what you mean by the official statement discussion has been "carried". I am not a great fan of including direct quotes, but in this case, I think we must. These statements are carefully crafted and paraphrasing them will introduce noise and possible distortion which we should avoid at all costs. There is no policy that says that we should not include official statements. When it is the best source available, we can and we should. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - This I agree with. Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not know what is the problem. Pakistan claims Yadav is arrested from B'stan. India never accepted this "arrest" theory in B'stan and talked about his abduction from Iran. Almost a month has passed and Pak failed to provide either any addition info or any concrete proof of his arrest in B'stan. Instead, even they are talking about two places of a single arrest. BTW, in the lead both India's and Pak's claims are to be presented. India NEVER accepted this "ARREST" theory. Clear case of PoV pushing.Ghatus (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nuro Dragonfly: I am surprised with your one line support, which seems to disregard the points that I made. It is an accepted fact that the man is in Pakistani custody. But we have no verifiable independent sources to say that he was "arrested," and that he was arrested in Pakistani territory.

And, if you are saying that the Indian government statement should be excluded, I would like to hear your reasons. Or, if you have explained it already, I would appreciate a diff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

We also dont have any verifiable independent sources to say he was abducted, and that he was NOT arrested in Pakistani territory. Most of the sources, including Indian are saying that he was arrested inside Pakistan. You want to add a WP:FRINGE theory, get consensus for it. Majority of the sources are saying that he was arrested, if majority says he was abducted, then let me know.

As regards the official statement, well when we have tons of sources saying the same thing as the official sources, then there is no need to fill up the space by adding the statement itself. This, I think, will add noise to the article.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• I think you've all confused yourselves again.

1 - I don't know which specific source you are all referring to. I gave a summary of the source material without checking if it was Pakistani or Indian, quite specifically, though this could always been determined by the content, of which I'm not going to re-read again.

2 - It is a claim by Pakistan as to where he was arrested, and it is a claim by India that he was abducted; they are both claims. Therefore they will be stated as such, if you are actually trying to achieve neutrality, which I don't believe most editors on here are trying to do.

3 - The Official statement is fine, as it is not adding noise, whatever that is supposed to mean, and is the only Official source cited (I have changed my mind as to the importance of this source because of this debate, which is the proper course)

4 - The level and ability of your English, and the written word used by most of you, is not sufficient to continue editing the English Wikipideia as far as I can see. The discourse on this Talk Page is nearly eligible, when re-reading through its entirety, trying to follow the nuance, and the context of the debate. After the fact, for someone who was not involved in the original discourse it would be seem like an incoherent rant, of which I've bravely or stupidly entered into as a neutral source. Nothing about this entire discusion has been anything but battleground attitudes by most on here.

5 - The article has not been fixed, in any way, to even attempt a neutral POV. Those of Pakistani Nationality display complete ownership of the article as a group, which is more than evident in this debate. Nothing about this article is anything more than propaganda between Pakistan and India and I cannot see the point of its continued place on WP.

6 - I don't consider it a required article on Wikipedia any more, as it is not a notable event outside the two countries, with barely even Bangladesh or Sri Lanka mentioning it. In fact, I consider the efforts by the Pakistani editors to be about as disingenuous as can be, and a group effort to preach Nationalist agendas is being aggressively pushed and fought, in a battleground manner, by them. The vitriol used to defend their POV is excessive.

7 - The attitude displayed, in the manner used when citing WP policies, has become clear to me is nothing more than a smoke screen, to attempt to hide their collective ownership agenda here on Wikipedia about anything to do with Pakistan. I have long since stopped giving any 'good will' or 'good faith' to this group because of their attitudes. The protectionist vitriol on the AN/I was more than proof of this to my reading of it, and confirmed this about the matters as a whole.

I have nothing more to offer, do not contact me or involve me any more with this article or I will consider it harassment and you will be treated as such, all of you. The only further involvement I will have with this debate in if it goes to ARBCOM and I will give my statement at that time.

Nürö ^{G'DÄŸ MÄTË} 22:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the official statement should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC) I think the official statement should not be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreedomWarrior01 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

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) 12:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2017

update this article with " On 10 April 2017, Pakistan military sentenced Jadhav to death. 119.160.119.126 (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Done by another user. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

edit request on 10 April 2017

He is falsely implicated by Pakistan as a RAW agent and created forged documents to make him a RAW agent. Pakistan has a history of creating such fale stories to implicate any Indian found anywhere in Pakistan. Truth seeker1 (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done, no specific edit was proposed. Please indicate the text you want change, with wiki-markup for your proposal, citing reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

Kulbhushan Sudhir Yadav (also spelled Kul Bhushan Yadav alias Hussain Mubarak Patel) is an Indian national arrested in Iran (Not from Balochistan), Pakistan, over charges of terrorism and spying for the Research and Analysis Wing intelligence agency. Upanand1981 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. This proposal contradicts multiple reliable sources already cited in the article. If you have other reliable sources that support this proposal, please provide them. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Surname?

What is the real surname(last name) of Kulbhushan?

is it Yadav or Jadhav(Dawn News)? Because on Marathi News television channels and Dawn News it is showing Jadhav.

--Abhinav Garule (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article seem to spell it either way. "Yadav" is probably closer to Western pronunciation. On the other hand, if the majority of sources spell it "Jadav" then maybe the article title can be changed. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@User talk:Anachronist we've enough sources now.

Real name is Kulbhushan Jadhav

1. https://thewire.in/123381/kulbhushan-jadhav-india-pakistan/
2. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/un-no-position-to-judge-legality-kulkbhushan-jadhav-death-sentence/1/927761.html
3. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/kulbhushan-jadhav-baloch-leaders-pakistan-india-sushma-swaraj-death-sentence-4611228/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhinavgarule (talk • contribs) 06:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Abhinavgarule: and what about the sources already cited in the article that spell it "Yadav"? You're going to have to demonstrate that "Jadav" is the predominant spelling in English-language sources. Going by Google hits (I know, not reliable, but it's a good rough indication), there are over 400,000 hits for "Kulbhushan Yadav" but only 20,000 for "Kulbhushan Jadav", which suggests that "Yadav" is the most common spelling. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@User talk:Anachronist In India, Yadav and Jadhav are two different surnames. If you search for Kulbhushan Jadhav you'll also find some news related to it. And on television news also they are pronouncing Jadhav. And in confession video also Kulbhushan himself is introducing himself as Kulbhushan Jadhav in first few seconds.. And Jadhav is the right surname. --Abhinavgarule (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this point. The Government of India's statement gives the last name as "Jadhav" and this should be regarded as authentic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I mistyped the name as "Jadav" in my Google search. Correcting the spelling to "Kulbhushan Jadhav" yields 1.3 million hits.

However, the weird thing about that YouTube video is that he's saying a word that sounds like "Jadhav" but it's still being subtitled as "Yadav". How do you explain that? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an issue in subtitle and his cover name also has an error in subtitle. It is displaying as Hussain Mubarik Patel at 0:14 seconds.--Abhinavgarule (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Please redirect article to Kulbhushan Jadhav https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulbhushan_Jadhav as Jadhav is real surname. http://indianexpress.com/article/india/kulbhushan-jadhav-baloch-leaders-pakistan-india-sushma-swaraj-death-sentence-4611228/ https://thewire.in/123381/kulbhushan-jadhav-india-pakistan/ Abhinavgarule (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please see WP:MOVE if you want to initiate a discussion. Generally, we'd need to see which spelling is used more within reliable sources. Mar4d (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

And see my comment in the section above. "Yadav" seems to be the most common spelling, based on search results. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My error, I was comparing "Yadav" with "Jadav" and not "Jadhav". Doing a proper comparison, and searching news stories instead of just any Google hits, does indeed show an overwhelming preference for "Kulbhushan Jadhav" and not "Kulbhushan Yadav". Therefore @Abhinavgarule: please help clean up the article after the page move. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, move completed based on discussion above. No need for WP:RM in this case, should be non-controversial considering the predominance of one spelling in news coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2017

Jadhav spelled as Yadhav 2601:84:4502:4A87:71EB:6726:3B7C:82C0 (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Do you have sources proving it? Can you show that the spelling "Yadhav" is predominant among all sources? In some sources it's spelled Yadav. In most sources however, it's spelled Jadhav. This has already been discussed above. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

request: on Wiki , be a wikipedian first

Noticed so many edit wars, claims on perspective up to even for the erroneous last name correction, the Indian view , the Pakistani view. Sad to state that we forgot the spirit of Wikipedia. Most of the editors were only focused on supporting their pov with a reliable secondary source instead of focusing on the quality of article. This article is of significant political influence and search engines will redirect readers to this page for info. Let us please set a good example by targeting a 'B' class for this piece instead of trying to put our individual bias. It will be helpful for one and all and is in the spirit of Wikipedia as well. I am commenting today as there has been a recent event on this case, and another round of edit wars shall follow if not we were ourselves to craft something that is acceptable, neutral , non-offensive in the first place itself. In good faith , Devopam (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggest adding "Indians in Pakistan" article in See Also

A minor edit if possible, please add Indians in Pakistan article under subsection See Also. Cheers. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@PAKHIGHWAY:  Done. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on May 13, 2017

The section about stay order is invalid as ICJ never made any claims of having authorised a stay order, either remove the section in it's entirety or mention the fact that it was just a dead-end to India's pis aller (French for the move of last resort), I recommend mentioning a neutral statement regarding the basis of Indian claims.

I myself read all the pertinent press statements by ICJ on their website (http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/), The closest thing i found to a stay order was a mere 'request' for provisional measures, since Yadav is such a big asset to the case, the nature of this statement was barely a request and until the hearing is conducted on 15th May, ICJ's role is strictly advisory, Visiting ICJ's site, one can find a section dedicated to 'decisions' no stay orders are mentioned there either.

I also base my request on this article below that may act as a citation: https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/pakistan/icj-rubbishes-indian-medias-claims-regarding-staying-jadhavs-death-sentence-will-hear-pakistan-first/ Hydrogen Radium (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

it becomes a stay order. "Don't kill the dude till 15th, I will think about it on 15th. "Stay" as you are." —usernamekiran(talk) 11:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not an order! A stay order is legally binding, more like "Please keep him alive so we can make a decision on whether u can kill him or not" Hydrogen Radium (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

You said what I said. Also, "please" makes it a request, not an order.

Requesting opinions from other editors. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration Hydrogen Radium (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I am 100% sure that it is a stay order. I simply want to get the consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure Hydrogen Radium (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done:--That's primarily a stay order.Winged Blades ^Godric 03:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

change, "On May 10, 2017, the International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Jadhav after India approached it against the death sentence." to "On 18 May 2017, the International Court of Justice stayed the hanging of Jadhav after India approached it against the death sentence."

change, "On 9 May 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered a stay on Jadhav's sentencing after India approached it to contest Pakistan's death penalty." to "On 18 May 2017, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered a stay on Jadhav's sentencing after India approached it to contest Pakistan's death penalty." Mfarazbaig (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mfarazbaig: reviewing the request. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

References

---

NOT DONE @Mfarazbaig: the stay was ordered on 10 May. As of now, the case is still going on in ICJ (no decision by ICJ yet). I corrected the date from 9 May to 10. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: See, Hindustan Times reporting the stay order again. Either it was wrong on the first instance or the second. NO stay order was passed on 9 May. The ICJ Press Release clearly states that a request for provisional measures was made. You think HT is more credible than AJ and NYT. The stay order was only given on the 18 May after the proceedings began on 15 May. If you still think you are right, bring evidence as to the stay order being passed on 9/10 May. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• requesting second opinion. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The 'stay order' was indeed given yesterday. What was given on 10 May was an informal request of some kind. The edit request is good, with a NY Times citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: would you please update the article? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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([3]). 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. [4] 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. ([5]). 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 doesn't seem NPOV since all the links belong to 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)