This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
There has been a related group of edits by an IP in mid-September and now late-October. A recent edit summary by the IP summarizes one side of the question, that "controversial sources need attribution when scholars have noted bias in Indian media on Kashmir". That is, Times of India and The Hindu may be biased in the way they portray Bhat and that terms like "terrorism" and assigning guilt for crimes without due process may be incorrect. My reading of the article is that the current language is pretty neutral and based on the sources; for instance he isn't called a terrorist anywhere in the body (but is called so in a headline used as a source, the IP edited this, but we can't change the headline in our sources). I'm not sure what more to say and have reverted the changes, but I want to comment here as edit summaries are a difficult place to have a dialogue. IP, if you think there is more to be said or that the article should be changed, let's try to come to a consensus here rather than in our edit summaries. Smmurphy(Talk)22:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The 2011 kidnapping of a minor girl is probably original research. The source is 6 years old. Though the article does mention a Sabzar Ahmad Bhat of Rathsuna, it still doesn't mean we should automatically assume it's the same one. Any self-interpretation should be avoided and there seems to be no current news article confirming he did this. Though there are articles about him being involved in petry crimes, we cannot automatically assume he did it. Unless and until it can be without a single doubt be confirmed through reliable sources it was him, I sugest the kidnapping be removed. 61.1.57.242 (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think you are right. I've removed that sentence from the article. The source (Minor girl recovered from punjab, another in srinagar.(2011, Jan 31). United News of India. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/848513540) doesn't give the reader anything clearer than a name and region to connect the two people. I thought there was more, but I was looking at a different article regarding a different event. My bad. Smmurphy(Talk)01:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
