Talk:Indians in Afghanistan

1593:

need to self revert your last edit to keep it fair and so as not to edit war. In case you left out my second last edit's summary.. I pointed out that I objected to those edits but you continued to put those back into the article. At this point, this is likely to get us both blocked in my opinion and the better and constructive way is to take it all to dispute reaolution along with this. I reverted the image (and I remember mentioning that) on the basis that it did not properly represent the scope of the article and at the very best be placed in the sections some where though I don't endorse that either. You can put this and the other content I reverted to your list as well if you want (and yes I reverted all the edits on purpose... I objected to them - not by mistake while reverting your edit where you quoted me - I had reverted them once before. Lets not editwar). --

1420:

during your block. Attempts should be made to discuss the content here. Regardless of whether the arbitration is accepted or not, since that would not solve the content dispute anyway, a good Idea would be to start doing that step by step here... which ever parts can not get consensus can be listed together and taken further. To start with, I also have concerns about the heading. I think both 'alleged' and 'support' should be removed from the heading and instead a neutral, non implying, topic oriented heading should be used without mentioning whether the issue is an allegation or a fact since it would be disputed ie. "Intelligence activity and cross border insurgency". If you object to that you can give your own suggestion so that we can move on to the next issue (or create subsections if you want to do it simultaneously). --

4609:: I am the protagonist opposing Top Gun in thus issue. My view is that any military presence of India would not have escaped notice in such a high visibility country as Afghanistan. User:Top Gun is unable to provide reliable references for details of induction, force level, mandate, agreements between Indian & Afghan governments, incidents, casualties, bases etc (all normal basic issues connected with military presence in any country). In my view, a few embassy military personnel do not constitute a military presence. My stance is that User:Top Gun need only prove me wrong with reliable sources from a neutral agency. 3425:: The attacks, explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians, have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries. And yes, obviously the lede should mention that attacks against Indians have been carried out and by whom. The "Attacks on Indians" section is very relevant. These attacks constitute one major topic with regards to the issue of "Indians in Afghanistan". You can see this when searching for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google. You can see it in articles about "Indians in Afghanistan". 5633: 3655:

associated with non-political crimes i. e. for self-enrichment. "Insurgent" is a broad term. Someone can be an insurgent without being a terrorist. As an example there could be an insurgency against NATO without the attacks that are targeting non-combatants to cause terror. Such attacks would be the spraying of acids into the faces of girls to make them stop going to school (for ideological-political reasons) or the terrorist attacks against Indian doctors trying to make Indian nationals/civilians stop coming to Afghanistan (for ideological-political reasons).

1500:"Intelligence activities" alone is a mention of the topic being discussed under the heading and does not give any implication... Using "Alleged intelligence activities" is as bad as "Supported intelligence activities". If you still disagree we can move on to try to resolve the next edits and treat this later with some form of resolution with the rest. The terror attacks as I said are not for this article. They are talking more about Pakistan and those organizations than Indians in Afghanistan... this is 4865: 1102:. The section claims to discuss Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks but your edit reversal planned impacts unconnected areas about role of Indians in Afghanistan. In absence of specific proposal narrowly addressing the issue "Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks", a wider application of edit reversal suggests to me of possible POV. Disagree on that basis. Specify your exact change proposed for the issue headlined in the section heading so that that may be considered. 2588:". This discussion will be open for a period of 30 days to garner a consensus about each individiual issue. Members of the community are invited to comment on the proposals, giving reasons as to why they support their preferred proposal. This discussion is not a vote, and as per all discussions, comments will be weighed based on strength of argument. If you have any questions, leave a message on my talk page. I am only a faciliator, I am not involved in this dispute. 1463:

can start with some attribution and balancing the statements in equal weight. As for section about attacks on Indian embassy or Indians... that should have brief mention in the article since the scope of this article is much broader - and then Pakistan's links to the organizations mentioned are completely misplaced... they don't belong to this article rather to the articles of those organizations where it should be neutrally presented. --

243: 222: 4680:

threat. That will surely undo all of Manmohan Singh's bilateral efforts to woo Pakistan, despite its established role in cross-border terror attacks in India. And how India hopes to train and equip Afghan soldiers - known to switch loyalties quickly to the best paymaster - when our own army is overstretched at home and our policemen are inadequately trained and equipped to battle terror or the Naxalite menace, is anybody's guess.

3230:, which supports their position and none of the users supporting the other title have countered this argument, merely holding, in a generic fashion, that reliable sources refer to these attacks as acts of terrorism. The text of the section will certainly clarify that these attacks were perpetrated by terrorists, but the use in the section title of such value-laden words is discouraged – and would also probably run afoul of 3999:, but explicitly noting that this is not about "military presence" because there is none, but rather about the alleged intelligence activities. This is only about whether Pakistan's allegation with regards to intelligence activities should be mentioned or not. They can be mentioned, if they are presented as a minority position and contrasted with the majority position which says "we attach no credibility to those claims". 253: 3222:, but this opinion has not garnered much traction. The second part of the problem regarded the title of the section. Again, I feel I have to point out that when an admin closes a discussion, he must avoid just counting heads, but, rather, he should assess the weight of the various rationales, to determine which ones are more in keeping with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. In this case, many of the editors supporting the 2866:"In a country where there are so many issues and countries of teh world are reducing its presence India has something like 26 counsulates? Why does no one think? Has the world become so media struck that they have no common sense of their own? If India wants to help as a friend why not take the 3 million Afghan refugees lying in Pakistan and clothe and feed them. Pakistan would be glad to hand them all over." 3310:(just like the Indian military presence and its denials) and not to mention they don't belong to this article. The fact that Indians in Afghanistan are facing attacks by militants is notable, yes, but that should get a mention on its own accord even a bare one time mention that these are blamed on ISI (with attribution and denial inline) is acceptable. If that section is to stay it should only focus on the 2902:: as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban. 191: 5772: 5690: 5600: 352: 331: 2371:

disputed and can even be mentioned if a source says with attribution to the party. But again... you are simply stating the claim of no military presence as a fact. 1) This statement should be made in the section about that matter so that it is in context and then it should be attributed in balance with other claims. This is currently even inconsistent with the article itself. --

2355:. We have the same situation as on the Taliban talk, you are putting equal weight on 1) the majority position among reliable sources and 2) Pakistani allegations/denial constituting a minority position. 1) explicitly states "India has no troops in Afghanistan" but 2) alleges India has deployed too many security guards which is a secret conspiracy to create a military presence. 362: 1326:"Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan." 958:"Click on the Google news archive link at the top, and the first results are about the president of Afghanistan commenting on how his government will take all possible measures for the security of Indians in Afghanistan, plus they be targeted and killed there. The article contains ample well referenced sections about various aspects involving Indians in Afghanistan." 442: 1675:

impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban. Also the title is too long otherwise and "alleged intelligence activity" already says it all.

2919:: I don't see why this section is included in the article at all. The article is about Indians in Afghanistan, presumably that refers to ethnic Indians living there. It is not about "India and Afghanistan". Since I haven't been involved in any of these discussions, clarification would be appreciated. -- 5450:

The version you are proposing was up for deletion... to fix those issues, this content is bound to get back in. After the complications we do have here now, a better way would be to trim content through this RFC. I had the same point about the statement in negative about Indian troops in Afghanistan,

1525:

Do I really need to take the section heading to a noticeboard or RfC? We both know well that it is "alleged" when only one coutry alleges something and many others deny the allegation. The terrorist attacks are exactly for this article 1) search for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google (notability) and

1372:

If TopGun and Mar4d have an issue with the additions, I propose we rather discuss the wording about Pakistani involvment rather than removing 10,000 bytes of reliably sourced, notable content (which also effected other well-sourced and notable parts of the article) on which a consensus of editors can

1355:

I strongly support the additions as per what Dream Focus already wrote. 1) The issue of Haqqani/Lashkar-e-Taiba terror attacks on "Indians in Afghanistan" is highly notable. One indication, if "Indians in Afghanistan" is searched for on google.com everyone will see what results come up. 2) All of the

915:

That was on content, you need to self revert and add that content after a consensus, most of it is coatrack and needs to be removed. I did much effort trying to keep AshLin's edits and the infobox image and to remove the content which you've simply reverted instead of discussing. I did not invoke BRD

4679:

Development projects apart, India is now preparing to provide the Afghans military and police training. This in itself is both a herculean task and fraught with negative possibilities. For one, any Indian military presence in Afghanistan will only add to Pakistan's anti-India hysteria of a two-front

3654:

Yes. Terrorist attacks are meant to cause terror in non-combatants to achieve a certain political, ideological or religious goal. Generally, terrorist attacks are also criminal. However, if you simply say criminal attack that generally does not bare the connotation of "terrorism" as it is more often

3016:

I'm not so sure. If ethnic group X is singled out to be attacked in country Y, then that's information about X in Y that should be included. However, if an occasional member of X turns out to be an intelligence agent, then I don't see why we need to discuss this at all in an article about X in Y. As

2729:

standard for the headings should be especially higher than the text. We should not be judgmental when using headings. "Intelligence activities" is a simple mention of what the section contains, while option one and three both are implying one point of view or the other. If the support for insurgents

1462:

what the content is about instead of saying who alleges or whether it is true or incorrect. If you want to remove the insurgency part simply "Intelligence activities" instead of "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Actual intelligence activities" will be neutral. About the rest of the content... we

1120:

The proposal is not mine to 'remove' the content, rather this was about whether to keep the content since it was new addition. There's been no consensus so far on that. I included in my descriptions on why I was removing the content. The removal itself means that I object specifically to the content

996:

article. The recent content is pretty much full of NPOV issues. You've added that Haqqani and Lashkar e Taiba has done so and so and is 'supported' by Pakistan, while Pakistan (and Haqqani too) has strongly denied their connection. So you are just adding blatant POV here. This is called POV pushing.

643:

I agree with Mard this is a opportunistic edit by user JCala I believe his tit for tat edits are filled with POV and have hardly any relevance to the article Pakistans claim was barely 2 sentences his retaliatory attitude is motivating his edits on the article rather than some honest concern for the

4523:

and specifically mentioning that in an unrelated section ("Indian Aid") is completely undue. It should be mentioned in the section about the intelligence activity along with the other allegations and denials with attribution to who states as such. This probably might already be covered there, so a

4248:

Raising the Indian bogey in Baluchistan and Indian involvement in Afghanistan is an old tactic of POV warriors such as TG. There is no proof of either military presence or of Indian intelligence activities in Afghanistan. Keeping in view, the initiator TG's tendency to make a false accusation (see

3849:

Basically, the majority of editors who chose to comment here appear to lean towards not including the contentious bits of info, but this does not rise to the level of consensus in Knowledge (XXG)'s terms, in my opinion, because a. quite frankly, some of the rationales put forward are somewhat weak

3529:

My bad, I didn't provide context assuming you would have read the content (or my comment on top). I was referring to the allegations about the attacks. After referring to them as terrorism, the article is describing how those attacks are related (or accused) to Pakistan and it's intelligence (ISI)

1592:

I'll be posting a list here in time. On a sidenote, I did not say or endorse the use of word "terrorist" in the heading so don't quote me as so. In the talk page discussion I will specifically place agreed content to be added in either italics or inverted commas and/or mention so with it. Also you

1541:

I think this will not go anywhere like this since you are not seeing things from my perspective. My stance at the moment is headings are impartial to implication of both allegation or actual support as this is controvertial... I there's no agreement on the other issues too. To save us both time...

4699:

quote that has been provided along with the reference from the above quoted paragraph... completely cherry picked and opposite of the context. And the we have to see the inconsistency this sentence would be creating in the article. There are accusations claiming evidence (notable ones) that India

4017:

means. Specifically noting "we attach no credibility to those claims" is incorrect. Only India's denials should be mentioned in the lede inline with this which are relevant. This was actually presented in good form till it was removed I think. Saying "Pakistan claims undeniable evidence for India

3846:

I held off on closing this section of the RFC as I hoped it would receive further input, because, in my opinion, there was no clear consensus; unfortunately, nobody else commented. That said, RFCs kept open indefinitely are not useful and, so, I think it's now time this section too was closed and

3555:

I see what you're saying. Imo, the second para is mostly unnecessary since there is a separate article on the 2008 Indian embassy bombing. At best, a one sentence statement about the involvement of LeT and ISI (assuming that it is reliably sourced that this is a dominant view) may be appropriate.

2370:

No this is different from that. Infact you completely misunderstood that dispute till my last comment. Anyway, what I'm saying is this is a disputed fact. That allegation is a proof of it. More citations state Pakistan has undeniable evidence. That fact that it has been shared or not is not being

2300:

There are no Indian troops in Afghanistan. Security guards at embassies do not count as military presence, otherwise we could say "Egypt has a military presence in Israel" or "The United States has a military presence in China" since every country employs paramilitary guards as security for their

2239:

Unable to find proper references, User:Top Gun has placed "dubious", "inconsistent" tags. Without any cited proof, (which would kill this argument one way or another), or credible grounds, Top Gun insists there is a dispute. He provides no worthwhile grounds for this. Yet, he places these tags to

2235:

India has no military presence in Afghanistan. Military presence implies a base, deployed units, a force designation, a mission, a mandate, geostrategic agreements between the nations - at least some of these, if not all. None of these are present. Military presence does not mean embassy military

1419:

JCAla, restoring content of your choice is not going to help here... there's no way you are going to get the content in by simply ramming it into the article. Just to prove that I don't debate only when the article is on my preferred version, I've not reverted your previous edits from the article

4950:

fully stands. You added a reference without verifying it with cherry picked quotes presenting the context exactly the opposite what was being said. The second point is exactly what I refer to here... the same user wants me to remove op-eds but is including and defending them. This is ridiculous.

4903:

India has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Afghanistan, as part of its effort to assert its influence in the region. Similarly, India is also active in Central Asia. It has stationed military personnel in Tajikistan, is involved in oil and gas exploration in Uzbekistan, and has signed

4131:

And why do you think we need to say Holbrooke instead of US, and then why does his full quotation get weight in the lead while the involved parties are getting just an accusation and denial. I think the sentence I suggested above is fairly enough weight in the lead. Try to get it neutral and not

3534:

as this article is not about that and a mention of attack itself would be enough (see my comment above) because Indians in Afghanistan are not blamed of those or involved in the background that is being given, given that this background itself is a disputed point of contention. See that section

3512:

I'm not sure I understand your question. If you mean, should an attack be labeled as "terrorist attack" in the text, then the answer is that it depends on what reliable sources call it. If reliable sources are in agreement that a particular attack is a terrorist attack, then we should call it a

991:

Mentioning Indians being attacked in Afghanistan is one thing (even still which would be just a piece of trivia and of not much weight more than a mention), but then adding all the blames about Pakistan and ISI seems like a continuation of addition here from the content which you couldn't get a

1457:

The headings are impartial to sides... even more than the content itself. Adding 'alleged' or on the contrary 'actually supported' or 'supported' etc will make it long and implying. It can be easy to resolve how to go about headings - making them short as possible will help. The current one I

2651:. The heart of the matter, however, concerns which title is, concretely, neutral. I have examined the various rationales provided to support the diverse !votes – and discounted those !votes whose rationale was a mere placeholder – and I find that the consensus among the editors, here, is that 2036:

India is gradually increasing the number of its paramilitary personnel in Afghanistan. It is stationing them there on the pretext of providing security and protection to the Border Roads Organisation, which is constructing the Zaranj-Dilaram road, and its consulates. From a few personnel, the

1674:

The correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" should be "Alleged intelligence activity" as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not

1441:

No comment on your editing behavior. On content, my proposal is simply "Alleged intelligence activities" as the supposed intelligence activities have only been alleged by Pakistan while having been rejected by other countries such as Afghanistan, India and the United States. The proposal also

2939:

This is because it is a notable and contentious accusation made by Pakistan repeatedly over time on the Indians living in Afghanistan (either working in construction work or otherwise) for such activities. India has denied this every time and this has become a point of contention between the

3906:

made by Pakistan (and denied by India). It should be included in the lede with attribution to Pakistan of what it alleges India of, inline with India's denial leaving the rest for the body. This is a significant part of the topic and including it in the lede with attribution and denial will

3217:

The issue editors were asked to comment on here was composite. First, they were asked whether the article should include a section regarding these attacks; the unanimous reply was that it should. One editor in particular, however, argued that such a section should be pruned, in keeping with

1394:

of this discussion or a parallel discussion and you've chosen the phrases of your choice not giving even an mention to the opposing editors. Your additions are disputed. The sooner you acknowledge that, the sooner we can proceed. I'll propose that you present your proposal here and I'll add

4992:"India has no troops in Afghanistan ... India is not a member of the United States led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a largely Nato operation to which it was not invited to contribute, given Pakistani sensitivities about a possible Indian military presence in Afghanistan." 2236:

staff, paramilitary troops, civilian intelligence officials or defense contractors, as has been tried to represent. A search in Google fails to find a single mention of Indian army military presence in Afghanistan. A large number of articles, in fact debate India's wisdom of keeping out.

628:

Indian nationals in Afghanistan have become the target of severe terrorist attack carried out by the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e Taiba against them. If any other nationality had been singled out for attacks in such a way, that would be mentioned in their respective article also.

4874:

To corroborate this evidence, here is another reliable reference - third party, which I could not have "faked". I quote a complete paragraph (as TG says I quote partial paragraphs to forward my point of view), which sums up for the article's readers, the Indian position in the

1659:

The "Attacks on Indians" section is very relevant. These attacks constitute one major topic with regards to the issue of "Indians in Afghanistan". You can see this when searching for "Indians in Afghanistan" on google. You can see it in articles about "Indians in Afghanistan".

1484:

Look, if you have "intelligence activities" you are implying they are taking place. But these are only "alleged intelligence activities". If the "intelligence activities" were a majority view, then I'd agree with leaving "alleged" out, but it's only being alleged by Pakistan.

5396:, the POV balancing act (by adding POV from both sides) is pretty much in operation. The rest of the article history is mostly a struggle between opposing POV pushing with the poor Afghani Indians forgotten by the wayside. If you ask me, we should revert the article back to 660:

I think getting this article deleted is not the solution, removing all the contentious content added after the last good version and adding that after discussion is the right way to rescue it. I did that but I've been reverted. There's already an editwar going on here.

1162:

template. Anyone who's worked on diaspora articles before will agree that picture is in the wrong place. As I've said before, this article is really tilting more towards diplomatic relations rather than meaningful content about the history of Indians in Afghanistan.

1699:

which you performed and is not stated in a reliable source. Also I've explained my position about the heading. Simply "Intelligence activity" is an impartial heading. There are also major issues with the lede where you have added the attack on Indians which is

4700:

does have military presence in Afghanistan and trains insurgents... but even if we say that those are just accusations, at the very best we ought not to mention this sentence at all and let the accusations and denials in the other section handle this. --

4547:: India has no military in Afghanistan. Again only Pakistan has made these allegations, and again they have provided no proof. Plenty of sources were provided to TG which say India has no troops in country, so we really need to say what the sources say. 1632:

I've also made a minor non dispute related adjustment so that the NATO report is not give the undue emphasis of conclusion. This is well covered in the actual article which is a GA and consensus there actually calls this addition as recentism as of yet.

4850:

I would be happy to just have stated my point point above, left it at that depending upon the neutral editors to form their own opinion & let TG not just state his point but pontificate at length. But he now accuses me of deliberately having added

3615:

And how can you say these were not criminal acts? Reliable sources do not agree on a single definition of "Terrorist" nor do governments. We have a specific policy for not using this word, you need to change that on the policy talk page instead of

1208:: Since I'm likely to get reverted as before for removing the additions which have no consensus (as apparent in this section) - should I request for a formal closure or the editors in support of the content want to take this to RFC/DRN/NPOVN? -- 4072:. The sentence by TopGun in no way reflects appropriate weight. Pakistan claims, India denies, Afghanistan denies and countries such as the US have said, Pakistan fails to present evidence and "we attach no credibility" to Pakistan's claim. 1742:

I've added the RS with a whole section about it. This fact is disputed... do not escalate the already disputed content by restoring it. This is not about just the presence of references. The content is contentious and should only be put in

5212:

This tag is not a personal attack in anyway. And the reasons are evident since you were not a participant of both the ANI and this, and appear out of nowhere to support the editors who asked you to. I'll leave the rest on closer to weigh.

5627:

Pakistan on Thursday described as “factually incorrect” the claim reported in Pakistan's right wing media that India has 32 "consulates" in Afghanistan along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, which are claimed to "destabilise" the nation.

5065:

this source as well... these claims are also attributed to "Indians" by the source and not stated as a fact. All the support points above are based on such claims which are actually attributed to Indians and can not be stated as a fact.

529:

It is well sourced information concerning Indians and Indian activities within Afghanistan whether these efforts are benevolent or sinister in nature it must all be stated and it is written in a neutral manner so darkness need not panic

508:

It is relevant to the scope of the article. It is notable enough to be cited by main stream media. And it has been put in the article in full attribution and along with denial unlike you do. There are no basis for removing the content.

3850:

and b. because the opposing view is also supported by a good number of users making policy-based arguments. Since a closing admin should always refrain from casting a supervote, I feel I have to close this section as "no consensus".

4831:*There is the broader verifiable truth on one hand and there is OR and insinuation but with lots of wiki-lawyering on the other. Now that TG has not proven the fact, he wants it removed altogether since he cant prove it otherwise. 1927:

The sources point to RA&W as well as armed support to insurgents... this is clearly shouting military. Anyway... I'll rather you take this discussion seriously instead of counting the security guards or not participate at all.

3447:, definitely: Knowledge (XXG) does not have the distinction of deciding who is and who isn't a terrorist, and I've raised this point on many occasions before. WP:WEASEL clearly applies here, and there is also a clear policy at 1670:

Here you are following Pakistan's narrative. "The actual claimed purpose of India's presence in Afghanistan" ... claimed by who? Only Pakistan. But I think we can work out a sentence about the allegation and the denial for the

2579: 2491: 4333:

I've read the text and looked at the references and don't believe that this material rises to the level of certainty necessary for it to be included in the lede. Balance is good, but balance for the sake of balance is not.

809:

not state, that Afghans perceive the role of Indian nationals as positive? Were the attacks on Indian nationals, the embassy and the guesthouse not committed by the Haqqani network and Laskar-e Taiba? What is your problem?

2667:

questioned whether the article should include such a section at all; the issue was discussed, but no consensus is yet apparent. My closure, here, should not be construed as an endorsement of the inclusion of the section.

153: 3297:

by Darkness Shines in another instance where it was clarified to him by uninvolved users that using words like terrorists and the kind has POV issues. As for as the content in the section is concerned, it is a complete

5639:

There is already content in the article about this subject and your text does not blend into it well. Could you try to meld your point into the current text? Also, please do not say "on Thurday" like a newspaper, read

4460:; this leaves Qadri's op-ed, which, individually considered, would not be enough, and Tharoor's article in The Times of India. In my opinion as an editor and not in my capacity as closing administrator, I believe that 3429:

i. e. covered the issue extensively. To mention who carried out the attacks is relevant information for the reader. Further several editors have previously reached a consensus on that information being very relevant.

1892:

I did not say troops. I said military presence... that includes intelligence. Also, I think the consulates do have military presence... read in the news... but till I get that citation I'll stick the above argument.

2995:

No, this is completely in regard to Indians in Afghanistan. In that article it will have a different approach but surely should be mentioned. As far as this is concerned, it is completely notable and relevant here.

2350:

Please provide me with a secondary reliable source that explicitly states: "India has a military presence in Afghanistan." What you provided is the interview allegation by an advisor to ex-Pakistani military ruler

1824:

I assumed TG meant he had written and sourced a section on this he actually meant it. Hence the Reall? Were? As I see no such section on talk or article. Who removed the Time ref? It had no ref when I restored it.

2301:

embassies. And actually the single allegation by a Pakistani politician (while all reliable sources state "India has no troops in Afghanistan") could be counted as fringe science here on wikipedia in this regard.

4445:

to be overwhelming that the article should mention that India has no military presence in Afghanistan. The problem, however, is that the consensus emerging from a request for comment cannot override policy – and

2428:

Alleged (by Pakistan) "intelligence launching pads" is not a military presence. Otherwise, I assume, you wouldn't be opposed if I added "Pakistan has a military presence in Afghanistan." to appropriate articles.

3682:

Reliable sources verify terrorist activity as well as the President of Afghanistan himself following the total destruction of the Indian embassy in Afghanistan in 2008. --Agnostosgnostos 08:18, 18 February 2012

4519:: This can certainly not be stated as a fact. We have a whole section of allegations on this matter in the article with sources. Mentioning as a fact that India has no military presence in Afghanistan violates 4951:

Also, don't put words in my mouth. I've not accused you of doing any thing 'deliberately'. But from the looks of it, it sure looks like this.. the fact that you are still defending it is even more worrying. "

2976:

I agree with Regentspark & JCAla's suggestion. I suggest this issue first be discussed regarding applicability to this article and in that I support the removal of this section from here & move it to

1628:

Correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" section should be "Intelligence activity and support for insurgents" which is impartial to allegation or support rather a mention.

4218:

A very notable topic usually raised on the subject of India's presence in Afghanistan is Pakistan's accusations of India's intelligence activity inside Afghanistan. This has also been discussed in numerous

4086:

And I did not say "we" meant editors either. In one place we are mentioning national views and on other you are trying to get a sole quote by an individual, Richard Holbrooke, into the lede. This violates

795:

Attacks on Indian nationals in Afghanistan - which was there before, but mispresented as coming out of society instead as factually accurate carried out by terrorist organizations (Haqqani and Lashkar-e

1948:

RAW is not military. You mentioned the embassy as having military on them, so please do not take that tone. There are no sources are there? Find one which says India has a military presence in country.

5798:; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 5716:; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. 1625:

Content from "Attacks on Indians" is covered in lede while the actual claimed purpose of India's presence in Afghanistan by Pakistan which is a matter of contention among the nations is not covered.

2788:

That is the point, the heading should not imply whether it is an allegation or an actual support (the text has balanced arguments), rather just give a title to what the section is talking about. --

5436:

Yes, I support the article going back to that position and it should be strictly be about Indians in Afghanistan wihout all the other stuff which people could move to Inda-Afghanistan relations.

704:

Go to SPI for that, don't simply add allegations here. Is 109 still blocked? If not, this IP would be a valid participant even if it is the same person as that since dynamic IPs are not socks. --

2770:: this issue is too current for a definite wording. I would also note that using definite terms about the claims, which didn't gain any support by others then their source, would be a breach of 5186:

I will suggest TopGun to keep his conspiracy theories and day-dreamings to himself.(back to personal attacks on me ? ) what stops me from participating on an RFC on my watchlist article?

3307: 1051:

Exactly my sentiments. This article is supposed to be about Indian expatriates living in Afghanistan and their history, not about foreign relations. Most of that information should be in

452: 3094:

That would be incorrect, it was a clarification asked by regentspark. There's even enough support separately for it to be in the lede. This dispute is just about the section header. --

4991: 2064:

you just can't stop with the OR can you? Paramilitary personnel are not the army, it is also opinion and unproven. Pakistan keep saying this but have yet to actually provide proof.

2260:

If you read talkpage more than the article you would see that I'm explaining it in a section above. Simply saying there's not even a dispute when we have a whole section on it is

2162:

You misunderstand, TG wishes to use this source to rebut the claim that there are no Indian armed forces in country. By all means this allegation should be in the article though.

5988: 5350:.There is nothing at all in the article about Afghani-Indians, the purported subject of the article. Seems to me that the article is entirely a political battlefield of sorts. -- 2180:

military presence in Afghanistan and is stated as fact. AshLin and DS have removed the 'dubious' tags from it. This is clearly disputed and can not be stated as a simple fact. --

4306:

Yes, the citations about Pakistan's accusations are not disputed. All agree that Pakistan has made these accusations and that India denies those. Perhaps you meant "option 1"?--

147: 3318:

there too. If corrected as per my suggestions above, a bare mention could be made in the lede that Indians in Afghanistan are facing such attacks by different organizations. --

4249:

section below) and tall claims unsupported by refs, I would advise all neutral editors to re-visit all his arguments and make up their mind for themselves based on evidence.

4117:

Afghanistan and the US are hardly unrelated when it comes to supposed activities inside Afghanistan. Holbrooke was speaking for the US government from his official position.

3492:

What do you suggest about the content itself which is going in to allegations which are disputed themselves by the accused? Don't think that is what this article is about. --

4773:

Best ask on the RSN board about it then. I do not see how the other reference is fake. Yes there ere some OR. It does not say the opposite as what you are claiming though,

4959:

what you claim. That makes it fake. It does not say India has no military presence in Afghanistan. It only talks about a training plan and all. And no, your new quotation

4456:

this statement can be attributed to reliable sources". My personal opinion is that Raza's article cannot be used to support this statement, as to do so would run afoul of

2468:

And I said to you that a single allegation by an aide to Pakistan's military ruler is fringe science when all reliable sources write "India has no troops in Afghanistan."

552:

This section has less mention of Indians in Afghanistan and more of Pakistan and ISI... needs a re write. Its current form seems like an attempt to just add content about

2407:

Citations are shared in the article. But I guess its time we take this further. Were there any other issues to be mentioned before we take this to dispute resolution? --

1542:

how about you list your objections here in a list form.. I'll add mine right below them and then we can take it to dispute resolution with all involved editors above? --

5901: 5897: 5883: 4450:

is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s fundamental policies. I am inclined to close this section as "the article should mention that India has no military presence in Afghanistan

1283:

As there has been a parallel discussion on the article (with the additions) I will bring over what was said and done by editors after the rewrite (with the additions)

3381: 2285:

The ref is six years old and is a claim by a Pakistani politician. Find a neutral recent reference which clearly shows Indian military presence and not by inference.

3293:

clears this up pretty much even for the usage in the text. Also "Attacks on Indians" fairly covers what will be included in side the section. This was also taken to

5481:

and numerous keep !voters seemed troubled by the content. My suggested version above is simpler and would be a much better starting point for consensus seeking. --

4695:. An unattributed (and unreliable) op-ed can not be used to state this as a fact (along with a reference that says exactly opposite? Seriously?). Also look at the 3513:

terrorist attack. If there is disagreement amongst reliable sources, then we should indicate that it is unclear whether an attack was a terrorist attack or not. --

762:

This is unbelievable, the same editors who are in favour of deleting it because of it being a 'coatrack' want this content added which is even more of the same. --

313: 44: 587:

I'm afraid to see that this has become more politicised than having actual meaningful content about the Indian diaspora. Most of the new information belongs to

5869: 1666:"Indian doctors were killed in February 2010 bombings at two guesthouses in Kabul that were widely attributed to insurgents working at the behest of Pakistan." 609:, which is part of Knowledge (XXG) deletion policy. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." et al. 79: 4042:

The quoted text in the last sentence is very close to what I would prefer to see in the article (though the wording could be tuned for better readability). —

1858:

We have a separate section about intelligence activity and support for insurgents disputing this very sentence and this can not be stated as a simple 'no'. --

5968: 2561: 303: 3583:

Attacks on Indians seems more generic in this case. Not necessary that it needs to be by a terrorist. Could also be an insurgent. The two are different. --

2940:

nations... eventually affecting the politics of region. This is notable enough for the inclusion. The neutrality of section heading is the dispute here. --

3302:

at the moment. The article is about Indians in Afghanistan and that whole section is about terrorism accusations on Pakistan and its intelligence agency,

2086:

for this purpose.. stating any version as a fact is completely inconsistent to the section about intelligence activities and insurgent support, a blatant

2557: 1023:

I don't see any other comments by others to keep the content or any consensus with JCAla in the discussion (atleast yet) which would default a remove...

4852: 4844: 4656: 3601:

Absolutely, the two are different. These were terrorist attacks since they targeted civilians in one example Indian doctors residing in a guest house.

5973: 5963: 420: 279: 4904:

agreements with Kazakhstan in a number of areas, emphasizing uranium, agriculture, public health, information technology, education and oil and gas.

3476:: I agree that 'terrorist' is against MOS prescriptions. The text of the section can easily make it clear whether terrorists are involved or not. -- 5818: 5778: 5338:

Still, it seems odd to throw it in without context. I know I should be sticking to the RfC but the entire article is bizarre. Two entire sections (

2082:

other than paramilitary? If you call quoted text with exact wording as OR, you are incapable of a discussion. Pakistan and India both are claiming

85: 2549: 5008:

Whatever your additions were, the debate was on sources currently placed there. They have major issues. Will comment on the new sources later. --

4018:

conducting anti-Pakistan intelligence activities to train Balochi insurgents in Afghanistan while India denies this claim demanding evidence" is

5420:] and then proceeding with negotiated edits on the article. I.e., no material will be added without first seeking consensus on the talk page. -- 5983: 4091:. And then adding the allegation inline with denial of ten unrelated countries simply means including it to deny it. That is wrong and against 2661:

the "Intelligence activities" heading is only appropriate for undisputable intelligence activities, as it sounds as a statement of a known fact

410: 2962:

Now, that I think about it, RegentsPark is absolutely right! The whole section belongs to the India-Afghanistan article. Not to this article.

836:

in which I explained that the nomination for deletion came before the rewrite and thus the current version which he says needs to be rescued.

5736: 5696: 1526:

2) everything is reliably sourced (verified) and 3) only main themes are presented (what happpened? when did it happen? who was behind it?).

531: 5292: 5271: 4397: 4376: 3735: 3714: 3173: 3152: 799:

Pakistani claims re Indian intelligence activity (and counter-claims) - which now has the counter-claim plus further elaboration by TopGun.

30: 878:

No, we have two uninvolved editors commenting on the AfD, stating that the current version is well-sourced and explaining notable issues.

275: 266: 227: 3451:

which states that value-laden labels should be avoided - and that whenever they are used, in-text attribution is required (in this case,

5993: 5978: 3129:: Alleged intelligence activities . In fact the heading should should also clearly mention that the allegation is solely by Pakistan. -- 645: 5296: 4401: 3739: 3177: 3259:

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

3902:: Pakistan-India relations are a key factor to South Asian politics and stability. This accusation is quite significant and has been 2110:

LMFAO, read it in the correct context of the quote, he is clearly alleging paramilitary forces, not Indian armed forces. Give it up.

274:-related subjects on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the 168: 99: 5879:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

4795:

It does state the opposite about the training and presence. And it concludes just the opposite of what you are saying. It would be

135: 104: 20: 4263:

The above argument should be noted to be based on a personal attack. All my arguments are based on actual reasons unlike yours. --

5831: 5749: 4799:

to say from that statement that India has no military presence in Afghanistan. And no, the op-ed can not be stated as a fact. --

74: 5324:

It is a conscious policy decision keeping in mind that nation's with far less at stake have a military presence in the nation.

3779:

When did he say it should be named as attacks on Pakistan? Paragraphs of that section are not about attacks on Indians rather

202: 2607: 1073:

Even for that this information never got its better form. Purely one sided even if I see it from an outside point of view. --

1056: 5870:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120430194436/http://www.pak-times.com/2008/09/05/raw-creating-trouble-for-nato-in-afghanistan/

4934:

say what is claimed is not wikilawyering, that will not get any more credibility to your reply either. You should note that

385: 375: 336: 65: 4775:

For one, any Indian military presence in Afghanistan will only add to Pakistan's anti-India hysteria of a two-front threat.

2448:

military presence as a fact either, but to say the opposite is controversial as well and should not be stated as a fact. --

5516:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4777:

It is obvious to conclude from this that there are no troops in country, but that India is preparing for the possibility.

4413:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3818:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3189:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2873:" heading is only appropriate for undisputable intelligence activities, as it sounds as a statement of a known fact. The " 1181:

JC's addition made the article less about the diaspora and more about politics. This is not the right article for that. --

1156: 5242:

For reference, the op-ed used can not be used without attribution especially without support of reliable sources per RSN

5137:

These fake sources were reverted into the article. This edit should be checked. It has been discussed in detail above. --

4568: 1983:

for the disputed military presence. There are others present in the article. And RAW does amount to military presence. --

5944: 4158:

We don't need to name Holbrooke in the lead, but we should name Afghanistan's and the US' position for obvious reasons.

3314:

of those attacks. Also, this content (in the current condition) belongs no where near the lede since it is spilling the

2753:: There are no proof of these alleged activities. Only Pakistan has made the mnad have yet to provide any actual proof. 2730:

has to be mentioned in the heading it can be stated in another NPOV form like "Intelligence activity and insurgency". --

129: 1152:

Also, why is there a picture of the Afghan parliament in the infobox? This a gross misuse and misrepresentation of the

448: 5827: 5745: 4631: 3303: 2978: 2004:

That cite says RAW are training Baloch's It does not say there is a military presence in country, again you are using

1052: 688:

Note the above IP was blocked as IP 109.150.60.235 for disruptive editing in the past and is likely acting as a sock.

588: 471: 856:

the current version. The only neutral comment we have here for a version is one from Magog on the initial version. --

729:

JCAla, you've got to be joking if you think this article is more relevant than the previous version or that it isn't

5873: 4640:

I just verified the references for the sentence "India has no military presence in Afghanistan". They don't add up.

1695:

I've removed your claim of no military presence which is a disputed fact. Do not reinsert it. Your google search is

4890: 2327:

are increasing. If you don't agree... there's a dispute. But it is strange that you don't even acknowledge that. --

125: 5606: 109: 5530: 4786: 4744: 4552: 4476: 3939: 3858: 3346: 3242: 2758: 2676: 2647:

Everyone who has chosen to comment in this part of the RFC acknowledges that the title of a section must reflect

2525: 2167: 2115: 2069: 2013: 1954: 1918: 1883: 1878:

Support for insurgents and intelligence gathering are not "having troops in country" You are conflating the two.

1830: 1793: 1733: 498: 5900:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

5400:], bolster the history section a bit, and all go back to editing other stuff. But, I'm not holding my breath. -- 5243: 4520: 4014: 2037:

strength of Indian troops has reached almost that of a company size force and even includes Black Cat Commandos.

5478: 3123:

because Knowledge (XXG) "should always play in the safe side" .---Agnostosgnostos 08:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

2319:

of the citations present in the article. It is also time frame independent so I don't need to find a news from

535: 5288: 5275: 4393: 4380: 3731: 3718: 3169: 3156: 208: 190: 175: 5935: 5861: 4836:

FYI, the statement I am defending has been added by JC_Ala and not by me, so BURDEN argument wont work here.

828:

And in case you tried to imply anything by posting a link to what I wrote on NorthAmerica's talk, note that

649: 4861:

That the piece is an opinion-editorial under the specific column "opinion" and constitutes a genuine op-ed.

1665: 5857: 5853: 5817:

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant

5735:

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant

5343: 5339: 4843:

in her personal capacity based on personal opinions as an acceptable op-ed whereas he proclaims as fake a

4627: 2585: 2544: 591:. If this article remains in its present state, I think I am going to change my vote into a delete soon. 24: 5284: 4930:

No, I always wanted it removed. And please keep your comments to the content. Verifying a reference that

4626:: Unless there are some reliable references, it needs be mentioned that India has no military presence -- 4389: 3934:: Again, no proof of military forces from India being in country, Accusations do not belong in the lede. 3727: 3448: 3290: 3227: 3165: 55: 5919:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

5907: 5487: 5426: 5406: 5356: 5347: 5312: 5197: 5169: 5102: 4362: 4340: 4293: 3765: 3700: 3645: 3588: 3562: 3519: 3482: 3138: 3067: 3027: 2925: 1290: 1248:

Yes, since I see no consensus here and it is done in such cases but you can surely take this further. --

613: 5860:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 5270:

I read the discussion. The references are not saying this, these are opinions. This can not be said. --

3780: 3531: 3315: 3299: 3284: 3219: 2846:" alone does not specify whether it is an accusation or a fact, just a topic... that's what I meant. -- 2444:

I did give you a citation for allegation precisely saying troops. And I'm not asking here to say India

1701: 1619: 1501: 737: 730: 561: 70: 3982:, used with care: this POV is important for the topic, but it should be carefully presented as POV. — 5526: 4782: 4740: 4548: 4471: 3935: 3853: 3691:

Terrorist attacks against Indians . Thats what all the reliable sources and official reports say.- --

3342: 3237: 2754: 2671: 2521: 2163: 2111: 2065: 2009: 1950: 1914: 1879: 1826: 1807: 1789: 1729: 1339: 1234:

A "formal closure" for a normal section (that has been there for only nine days) of a talk page? No.

494: 1913:

Intel guys are not military, I do not think embassy guards can really count as a military presence.

556:

and the blames instead of the topic. The largest section of the "Indians in Afghanistan" article on

441: 141: 5189: 5161: 5063: 4987: 4354: 3757: 3692: 3130: 1395:

objections. Then we can either choose to take that to DRN or call an RFC which ever appropriate. --

161: 4947: 4935: 4641: 4461: 4224: 4088: 3908: 3361: 2580:

Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan § Opening Statements

1122: 5649: 5565: 4990:

which states: "India does not have troops in Afghanistan". Further sources are available such as

4580: 4047: 3987: 3409: 3371: 2882: 2825: 2779: 2601: 2593: 258: 5904:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

5670: 5641: 5111:

The above discussion is precisely on why there's no evidence for both to be stated as a fact. --

4796: 3617: 3294: 5920: 5782: 5700: 4069: 51: 5803: 5721: 4172:

The way you want to add them with full quotations does not have enough weight in the lede. --

4092: 3952: 3456: 3306:. After some mentions on attacks the content goes into accusing how ISI supports terrorists. 3231: 2771: 2726: 2648: 2261: 1744: 5482: 5459: 5441: 5421: 5401: 5375: 5351: 5329: 5307: 5253: 5221: 5145: 5119: 5098: 5074: 5050: 5016: 4971: 4918: 4807: 4761: 4708: 4614: 4532: 4335: 4314: 4289: 4271: 4254: 4180: 4140: 4103: 4030: 3963: 3919: 3795: 3784: 3641: 3628: 3584: 3557: 3543: 3514: 3500: 3477: 3392: 3326: 3102: 3063: 3022: 3017:

an example, we don't go about including a section on Israeli Intelligence activities in the

3004: 2986: 2948: 2920: 2854: 2796: 2738: 2664: 2502: 2456: 2415: 2379: 2352: 2335: 2290: 2272: 2250: 2222: 2188: 2150: 2098: 2052: 1991: 1936: 1901: 1866: 1755: 1712: 1641: 1601: 1550: 1512: 1471: 1428: 1403: 1302: 1256: 1216: 1189: 1133: 1107: 1081: 1035: 1005: 953: 928: 864: 770: 712: 669: 572: 517: 493:

Is pure coatrack and has no place in this article. TG please explain why you think it does,

5927: 5810: 5728: 4723: 4465: 4228: 3713:

it is discussed above. Blames on Pakistan are POV pushing. This article is not for them. --

2487: 2087: 977:

Search for "Indians in Afghanistan" at google.com and see what issues are being addressed.

948:

That the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e Taiba have been accused of carrying out the attacks?

606: 5578: 5306:

I'm sure I'm missing something here. Why do we need to state a negative in the article? --

5033: 4998: 4963:

state (actually specifically avoids stating) any thing about India's military presence. --

4597: 4236: 4206: 4163: 4122: 4077: 4004: 3660: 3606: 3464: 3435: 3085: 3046: 2967: 2907: 2473: 2434: 2397: 2360: 2306: 2133: 1849: 1815: 1683: 1582: 1531: 1490: 1447: 1378: 1239: 1168: 1064: 982: 965: 905: 883: 841: 815: 749: 693: 634: 596: 479: 4858:

The ref is from "Times Of India". India's largest-selling and most influential newspaper.

4739:

ABC Clio p252. I think he is good for the statement that India has no troops in country.

4565: 4457: 4220: 2005: 1725: 1696: 1298:"The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable." 5160:

India has no military presence in Afghanistan . Also agree with Ashlins comment above --

4651:(and I thought DS and AshLin were quite opposed to op-eds?). And should I be surprised, 792:

Afghan perceptions about Indian presence - which is new, valid for exactly this article.

5886:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1358: 805: 5926:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

5893: 4572: 4447: 5957: 5645: 4946:(or defend) something. You have endorsed JCAla's edits by reverting mine to them. So 4576: 4043: 3983: 3426: 3405: 3367: 3018: 2878: 2821: 2775: 2656: 1661: 1330: 5806:

then you may need to upload it to Knowledge (XXG) (Commons does not allow fair use)

5724:

then you may need to upload it to Knowledge (XXG) (Commons does not allow fair use)

4871:

That his article clearly cautions India against a military presence in Afghanistan.

3455:

calls them a terrorist?). A title with this value-laden label would not conform to

3358:, and remove all occurrences of "terrorist" (with exception of direct quotations): 1654:

I rephrased some parts, because they were too close to the sources. On the content:

1618:"Attacks on Indians" section is mostly irrelevant and about blames on ISI which is 367: 242: 221: 5949: 5835: 5753: 5653: 5534: 5492: 5466: 5445: 5431: 5411: 5379: 5361: 5333: 5317: 5279: 5260: 5228: 5202: 5174: 5152: 5126: 5106: 5081: 5057: 5037: 5023: 5002: 4978: 4922: 4814: 4790: 4768: 4748: 4715: 4635: 4618: 4601: 4584: 4556: 4539: 4478: 4441:

It's rather difficult to close this particular part of the RFC, because consensus

4384: 4367: 4345: 4321: 4297: 4278: 4258: 4240: 4210: 4187: 4167: 4147: 4126: 4110: 4081: 4051: 4037: 4008: 3991: 3970: 3943: 3926: 3860: 3802: 3770: 3722: 3705: 3664: 3649: 3635: 3610: 3592: 3567: 3550: 3524: 3507: 3487: 3468: 3439: 3413: 3399: 3375: 3350: 3333: 3244: 3160: 3143: 3109: 3089: 3071: 3050: 3032: 3011: 2990: 2971: 2955: 2930: 2911: 2886: 2877:" heading instead informs of the allegation but doesn't imply factual judgment. — 2861: 2829: 2803: 2783: 2762: 2745: 2678: 2613: 2529: 2509: 2477: 2463: 2438: 2422: 2401: 2386: 2364: 2342: 2310: 2294: 2279: 2254: 2229: 2195: 2171: 2157: 2137: 2119: 2105: 2073: 2059: 2017: 1998: 1981: 1958: 1943: 1922: 1908: 1887: 1873: 1853: 1834: 1819: 1797: 1762: 1737: 1719: 1687: 1648: 1608: 1586: 1557: 1535: 1519: 1494: 1478: 1451: 1435: 1410: 1382: 1263: 1243: 1223: 1196: 1172: 1140: 1111: 1088: 1068: 1042: 1012: 986: 969: 935: 909: 887: 871: 845: 819: 777: 753: 719: 697: 676: 653: 638: 619: 600: 579: 539: 524: 502: 483: 5874:

http://www.pak-times.com/2008/09/05/raw-creating-trouble-for-nato-in-afghanistan/

4725: 3640:

There is a difference between Terrorist, Criminal and Insurgent attacks right? --

2660: 1352:

above has stated he disagrees with TopGun's proposal to remove all the additions.

5453: 5437: 5371: 5325: 5247: 5215: 5139: 5113: 5068: 5044: 5028:

The Time Magazine source is still there. Just a sentence further down the road.

5010: 4965: 4914: 4801: 4755: 4702: 4610: 4526: 4493:

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

4308: 4265: 4250: 4174: 4134: 4097: 4024: 3957: 3913: 3789: 3622: 3537: 3494: 3386: 3320: 3096: 3021:

article just because a couple of Jewish Americans have been spies for Israel. --

2998: 2982: 2942: 2848: 2790: 2732: 2520:

Why on earth is this written this way? Is there some reason to doubt the polls?

2496: 2450: 2409: 2373: 2329: 2286: 2266: 2246: 2216: 2182: 2144: 2092: 2046: 1985: 1930: 1895: 1860: 1749: 1706: 1635: 1595: 1563:

I guess that is the step to be taken here. What are the issues to be discussed?

1544: 1506: 1465: 1422: 1397: 1349: 1250: 1210: 1183: 1127: 1103: 1075: 1029: 999: 922: 858: 764: 734: 706: 663: 566: 511: 271: 5344:

Indians_in_Afghanistan#Alleged_intelligence_activity_and_support_for_insurgents

3876:

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

5892:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 5771: 5689: 5591:

Please add to Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents section

5029: 4994: 4593: 4232: 4202: 4159: 4118: 4073: 4000: 3656: 3602: 3460: 3431: 3081: 3042: 2963: 2903: 2693:

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

2492:

Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan‎

2469: 2430: 2393: 2356: 2302: 2129: 1845: 1811: 1679: 1578: 1527: 1486: 1443: 1374: 1235: 1164: 1060: 978: 961: 901: 879: 837: 811: 745: 689: 630: 592: 475: 357: 248: 5553: 4649: 3752:

you clearly seemed to have missed the point this section is about attacks on

3080:

Right now we are discussing if the section even has a place in this article.

2584:

This is a community discussion on several content issues about the article, "

5824:

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image

5742:

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image

5525:

This source was deemed acceptable on the RSN board. It should be returned.

1704:

and excluded the claims on their intelligence activities in Afghanistan. --

5416:

Actually, if there is some traction for this idea, I propose going back to

4779:

India is now preparing to provide the Afghans military and police training.

4418: 3823: 3194: 2655:

is the best option, in that it contains the most neutral wording. To quote

2624: 351: 330: 4855:. I would request all third party editors to verify for themselves that: 3341:

Sources say that terrorists have attacked Indians working in the region.

4068:

Haha, no. By "we" I didn't mean the editors, it was a direct quote from

1356:

additions are well-sourced using only high regarded sources such as the

5097:

I see no sources to support the statement that India HAS a presence. --

4753:

Again, unattributed op-ed. And the fake reference raises a red flag. --

3308:

Knowledge (XXG) should not and can not state such accusations as a fact

993: 916:

to edit war (see that it was my only revert and that I also removed my

4847:

written on topic as an official op-ed by a strategic affairs expert.

3226:

option have pointed to Knowledge (XXG)'s manual of style, namely to

1806:

Actually it was already sourced with the Time Magazine which wrote:

945:

Indian nationals and targets were singled out for terrorist attacks?

941:

The article is on "Indians in Afghanistan". Is it not accurate that

383:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the 5477:. Many of the delete votes referred to the insurgency section as a 5392:

is where the politics of wikipedia editors starts creeping in. By

3364:

with a word "terrorist". This word has no valid use pattern at all.

5245:. All the sources in the article do not support this as a fact. -- 4524:

better idea will be to add this source to that text along side. --

1844:

Not right after the sentence, but at the end of the paragraph. :)

1724:

Restored and sourced. Who disputes it as a fact? And were is your

1664:

i. e. covered the issue extensively and wrote among other things:

785:

Mar4d, the article now contains factually accurate information on

380: 3783:- discussed in detail in the first comment and in explanation to 4727:

He is widly quoted in academic books as an expert on the region

3382:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#WP:TERRORIST

1346:

This clearly signals that he, too, is in favor of the additions.

5763:

File:Parliament delays summer recess.jpg Nominated for Deletion

4864:

That Maroof Raza is a strategic affairs expert from India. See

3535:

mentions more of the allegations that the events of attacks. --

2031:

Are allegations of India placing troops in Afghanistan correct?

1573:

Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan?

5594: 4955:", so what? I didn't say it was a non RS... I said it doesn't 4452: 1567:"Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities" 1364: 960:

Has anything not been sourced reliably? What is your problem?

436: 184: 15: 5671:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article3155622.ece

4648:

side here. That would be AshLin. First reference, an opinion

2659:, who expresses this idea in a particularly eloquent manner, 5681:

File:Karzai and Singh in May 2011.jpg Nominated for Deletion

1570:"Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians" 1027:

content should be removed until a consensus is achieved. --

5864:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2323:. Infact the source is clearly stating that the number of 1336:

This clearly signals that he is in favor of the additions.

278:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 564:

is since it has been mentioned at the deletion debate. --

2625:

Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents

1373:

reasonably be assumed as outlined in the above summary.

5474: 5473:

Actually, no. The version that was up for deletion was

5417: 5397: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5367: 5135: 4840: 3384:, where suggestions for the opposite are being made. -- 2569: 2565: 1841: 1614:

Here are some of the objections I have on the content:

1343: 1333: 1325: 1297: 1024: 957: 833: 829: 5042:

Couldn't have possibly known. Will verify that too. --

4722:

The first source is from a well respected journalist.

379:, which aims to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of 160: 5819:

image page (File:Parliament delays summer recess.jpg)

4986:

For everyone's information: I added the content with

4468:

thread to receive further input regarding the issue.

4434:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

4375:

intro should have a bit of everything in article. --

3839:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

3210:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2981:

and rename it as "Alleged intelligence activities".

2640:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

5896:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 5809:If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no 5727:If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no 5388:, though minimal, is about Indians in Afghanistan. 3289:: Headings should not be implying a point of view, 2842:" would actually both the biases from both sides, " 174: 5737:image page (File:Karzai and Singh in May 2011.jpg) 4693:I'll advise above users to reconsider their !votes 1059:or the Lashkar-e-Taiba/Haqqani network articles. 789:History - to which AshLin has added good content. 5340:Indians_in_Afghanistan#Indian_Aid_in_Afghanistan 2820:" is exactly the most neutral title possible. — 2713:Intelligence activity and support for insurgents 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 2725:: Headings should be impartial to any POV. The 1121:I chose to remove and is self explanatory. The 5882:This message was posted before February 2018. 4889:Sergei Desilva-Ranasinghe (13 February 2012). 3041:As lined out by AshLin, disagree with TopGun. 1442:includes all issues addressed in the section. 830:NorthAmerica's "vote" and statement on the AfD 4737:War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists? 4437:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 3842:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 3213:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 2643:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 8: 5989:Start-Class India articles of Low-importance 2836:False accusations of intelligence activities 2814:False accusations of intelligence activities 2392:Can you share the "more citations" please? 2243:I have reverted his POV placement of tags. 1808:"India does not have troops in Afghanistan" 188: 5852:I have just modified one external link on 5370:! The history was virtually non-existant. 4487: 4231:to make a brief note of this in the lead. 3870: 3253: 2687: 325: 216: 4227:-worthy and within the working limits of 900:TopGun, any on-content remarks from you? 5779:File:Parliament delays summer recess.jpg 2315:The citation states the opposite and is 1344:restored the version with the additions. 1334:restored the version with the additions. 5663: 5544: 4464:is satisfied, but I suggest you open a 4288:Should be. IFF it is suitably cited. -- 4132:include all the details in the lead. -- 4013:What I suggested above is exactly what 2142:I think the quotation mentions both. -- 451:on 3 January 2012 (UTC). The result of 327: 288:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Afghanistan 218: 5574: 5563: 852:You know how articles are rescued? By 5781:, has been nominated for deletion at 5699:, has been nominated for deletion at 5697:File:Karzai and Singh in May 2011.jpg 4353:As per AshLin and Darkness Shines. -- 2663:. Disclaimer: during this discussion 7: 4428:The following discussion is closed. 3833:The following discussion is closed. 3204:The following discussion is closed. 2634:The following discussion is closed. 952:To quote the neutral and uninvolved 548:Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks 373:This article is within the scope of 270:, a project to maintain and expand 264:This article is within the scope of 5969:Low-importance Afghanistan articles 5813:then it cannot be uploaded or used. 5731:then it cannot be uploaded or used. 3366:It appears this is already done. — 2214:Merged discussion fork sections. -- 2176:There's a statement that India has 207:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 5552:QADRI, MUSTAFA (4 FEBRUARY 2010). 5366:I agree. You should have seen the 4988:this reliable Time Magazine source 14: 5856:. Please take a moment to review 5368:article before I began editing it 3267:Terrorist attacks against Indians 2840:Supported intelligence activities 2808:See, the biased titles would be " 1125:is on the inclusion side here. -- 395:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject India 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 5974:WikiProject Afghanistan articles 5964:Start-Class Afghanistan articles 5770: 5688: 5631: 5598: 5554:"Should we talk to the Taliban?" 5512:The discussion above is closed. 4953:The ref is from "Times Of India" 4409:The discussion above is closed. 3814:The discussion above is closed. 3185:The discussion above is closed. 472:Talk:Indians in Afghanistan/Temp 440: 360: 350: 329: 291:Template:WikiProject Afghanistan 251: 241: 220: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 5777:An image used in this article, 5695:An image used in this article, 4891:"Iranian sanctions predicament" 4839:TG considers a Pakistani woman 4592:: Same as Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. 2875:Alleged intelligence activities 2818:Alleged intelligence activities 2701:Alleged intelligence activities 2653:Alleged intelligence activities 447:This article was nominated for 415:This article has been rated as 308:This article has been rated as 4866:Google search on "Maroof Raza" 4691:of the claim in the sentence. 3380:Just saw the section on this, 1057:Afghanistan-Pakistan relations 484:13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC) 1: 5984:Low-importance India articles 5950:08:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC) 5535:10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 5493:17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 5467:09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 5446:07:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 5432:21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 5412:19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 5380:19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 5362:19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 5334:18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 5318:18:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 5280:18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 5261:15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 5229:14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 5203:13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 5175:21:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 5153:10:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 5127:11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5107:11:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5082:10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 5058:11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5038:11:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5024:11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5003:11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4979:11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4923:10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4815:09:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4791:09:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4769:09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4749:09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4729:The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda 4716:08:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4636:06:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4619:02:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4602:13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4585:11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4557:11:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4540:10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4385:18:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 4368:21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 4346:15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 4322:11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4298:11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4279:11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4259:10:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 4241:13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4211:14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 4188:21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4168:14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4148:14:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4127:14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4111:13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4082:13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4052:13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4038:13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 4009:13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3992:11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3971:11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3944:11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3927:10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3803:08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 3771:20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3723:18:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3706:21:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3665:11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3650:10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 3636:14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3611:12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3593:11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3568:15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 3551:15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3525:14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3508:22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3488:22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3469:13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3440:13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3414:13:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3400:12:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3376:11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3351:11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3334:10:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 3161:18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3144:21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3110:14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3090:12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3072:11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3051:12:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 3033:15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 3012:11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 2991:10:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 2972:10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 2956:22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2931:22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2912:13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2887:15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2862:13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2830:13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2804:11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2784:11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2763:11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2746:10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 2614:23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 2488:WP:DRN#Indians in Afghanistan 42:Put new text under old text. 5787:Deletion requests April 2012 5705:Deletion requests April 2012 2530:14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2510:12:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) 2478:19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 2464:18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 2439:18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 2423:10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC) 2402:09:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2387:08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2365:08:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2343:08:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2311:17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2295:17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2280:16:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2255:16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2230:08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2196:17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2172:17:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2158:17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2138:17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2120:16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2106:16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2074:16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2060:16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 2018:16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1999:16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1959:15:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1944:15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1923:15:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1909:15:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1888:14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1874:14:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC) 1854:19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1835:19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1820:19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1798:14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1763:14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1738:14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1720:12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1688:09:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 1649:16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 1609:12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 1587:10:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 1558:07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC) 1536:17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC) 1520:21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 1495:16:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC) 1479:23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 1452:18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 1436:23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC) 1411:16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 1383:10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 1264:16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 1244:10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 1224:07:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) 1197:00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 1173:04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1141:22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1112:04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1089:03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1069:03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1043:01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 1013:00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 987:20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 970:20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 936:20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 910:19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 888:19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 872:19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 846:11:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 820:10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 778:19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 754:11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 720:19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 698:10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 677:19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 654:10:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 639:08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 620:08:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 601:02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC) 5785:in the following category: 5703:in the following category: 5621:to reactivate your request. 5609:has been answered. Set the 4201:changed, per AshLin below. 3360:I would actually amend the 2979:India-Afghanistan relations 2516:According to Foreign Policy 1053:Afghanistan-India relations 803:What is your problem? Does 736:. Not only is it even more 589:Afghanistan-India relations 580:23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 540:10:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 525:00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 503:00:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC) 6010: 5994:WikiProject India articles 5979:Start-Class India articles 5913:(last update: 5 June 2024) 5849:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 5654:03:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC) 4942:those editors who want to 4479:13:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 3861:11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 3245:12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 2679:12:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 2577: 2128:instead of just "troops". 421:project's importance scale 398:Template:WikiProject India 314:project's importance scale 5836:14:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 5754:14:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC) 4662:mention what is claimed. 3295:WP:NPOVN#Jaish-e-Mohammed 414: 345: 307: 236: 215: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 5514:Please do not modify it. 5451:seemed pointy per se. -- 4571:claiming otherwise. The 4431:Please do not modify it. 4411:Please do not modify it. 3836:Please do not modify it. 3816:Please do not modify it. 3530:etc. That, I meant, was 3207:Please do not modify it. 3187:Please do not modify it. 2637:Please do not modify it. 607:Alternatives to deletion 5845:External links modified 4223:. It would be entirely 4022:enough for the lede. -- 3955:tells another story. -- 3907:completely justify its 2871:Intelligence activities 2844:Intelligence activities 2810:Intelligence activities 2707:Intelligence activities 740:now, but now it's also 267:WikiProject Afghanistan 5854:Indians in Afghanistan 5828:CommonsNotificationBot 5746:CommonsNotificationBot 5573:Check date values in: 4419:Military content issue 2586:Indians in Afghanistan 2545:Indians in Afghanistan 2538:Background Information 834:my writing on his talk 197:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 25:Indians in Afghanistan 5348:Indo-Afghan relations 5297:few or no other edits 4653:reference two is fake 4402:few or no other edits 3740:few or no other edits 3283:Option 2 (and remove 3178:few or no other edits 2078:Do you read the word 201:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 100:Neutral point of view 5894:regular verification 5299:outside this topic. 4404:outside this topic. 3953:Knowledge (XXG):Lead 3742:outside this topic. 3180:outside this topic. 2240:create a suspicion. 2124:Whatever, let's use 1980:Here's one citation 1340:User:Darkness Shines 1157:Infobox ethnic group 992:consensus to put in 470:Please restore from 294:Afghanistan articles 105:No original research 5884:After February 2018 4577:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 4044:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3984:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3756:not on Pakistan. -- 3406:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 3368:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2879:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2822:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2776:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2126:paramilitary troops 2008:to push you views. 5938:InternetArchiveBot 5889:InternetArchiveBot 5811:fair use rationale 5729:fair use rationale 4893:. The Jakarta Post 4575:policy applies. — 3273:Attacks on Indians 3224:Attacks on Indians 3195:Attacks on Indians 3151:neutral enough. -- 3062:Neutral Enough. -- 2869:As I see it, the " 1293: 616: 259:Afghanistan portal 203:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 5914: 5842: 5841: 5791:What should I do? 5783:Wikimedia Commons 5760: 5759: 5709:What should I do? 5701:Wikimedia Commons 5625: 5624: 5491: 5430: 5410: 5360: 5316: 5300: 5231: 5187: 4513: 4512: 4405: 4344: 4070:Richard Holbrooke 3896: 3895: 3743: 3566: 3523: 3486: 3279: 3278: 3181: 3031: 2929: 2719: 2718: 2610: 2232: 1458:suggested merely 1295: 1289: 890: 874: 848: 722: 700: 618: 612: 463: 462: 435: 434: 431: 430: 427: 426: 376:WikiProject India 324: 323: 320: 319: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 6001: 5948: 5939: 5912: 5911: 5890: 5802:If the image is 5774: 5767: 5766: 5720:If the image is 5692: 5685: 5684: 5673: 5668: 5635: 5634: 5616: 5612: 5602: 5601: 5595: 5583: 5582: 5576: 5571: 5569: 5561: 5549: 5485: 5465: 5424: 5404: 5354: 5310: 5282: 5259: 5227: 5211: 5200: 5195: 5192: 5185: 5172: 5167: 5164: 5151: 5125: 5080: 5062:Counter checked 5056: 5022: 4977: 4906: 4900: 4898: 4853:a FAKE reference 4813: 4781:as you can see. 4767: 4735:Greenhaven p222 4714: 4687:This is exactly 4569:reliable sources 4538: 4488: 4475: 4433: 4387: 4365: 4360: 4357: 4338: 4320: 4277: 4221:reliable sources 4186: 4146: 4109: 4036: 3969: 3925: 3871: 3857: 3838: 3801: 3768: 3763: 3760: 3725: 3703: 3698: 3695: 3634: 3618:going against it 3560: 3549: 3517: 3506: 3480: 3398: 3332: 3254: 3241: 3209: 3163: 3141: 3136: 3133: 3108: 3025: 3010: 2954: 2923: 2860: 2802: 2744: 2688: 2675: 2662: 2639: 2612: 2611: 2606: 2600: 2596: 2574: 2573: 2508: 2462: 2421: 2385: 2353:Pervez Musharraf 2341: 2278: 2228: 2213: 2194: 2156: 2104: 2058: 1997: 1942: 1907: 1872: 1761: 1718: 1647: 1607: 1556: 1518: 1477: 1434: 1409: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1309: 1306: 1294: 1291:Northamerica1000 1287: 1262: 1222: 1195: 1161: 1155: 1139: 1087: 1041: 1011: 954:User:Dream Focus 934: 877: 870: 851: 827: 776: 718: 703: 687: 675: 617: 614:Northamerica1000 610: 578: 523: 444: 437: 403: 402: 399: 396: 393: 370: 365: 364: 363: 354: 347: 346: 341: 333: 326: 296: 295: 292: 289: 286: 261: 256: 255: 254: 245: 238: 237: 232: 224: 217: 200: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 6009: 6008: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6000: 5999: 5998: 5954: 5953: 5942: 5937: 5905: 5898:have permission 5888: 5862:this simple FaQ 5847: 5765: 5683: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5669: 5665: 5632: 5614: 5610: 5599: 5593: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5572: 5562: 5551: 5550: 5546: 5527:Darkness Shines 5523: 5518: 5517: 5452: 5246: 5214: 5198: 5193: 5190: 5170: 5165: 5162: 5138: 5112: 5067: 5043: 5009: 4964: 4896: 4894: 4888: 4800: 4783:Darkness Shines 4754: 4741:Darkness Shines 4701: 4549:Darkness Shines 4525: 4521:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 4494: 4486: 4469: 4429: 4422: 4415: 4414: 4363: 4358: 4355: 4307: 4264: 4173: 4133: 4096: 4023: 4015:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 3956: 3936:Darkness Shines 3912: 3877: 3869: 3851: 3834: 3827: 3820: 3819: 3788: 3766: 3761: 3758: 3701: 3696: 3693: 3621: 3536: 3493: 3385: 3343:Darkness Shines 3319: 3260: 3252: 3235: 3205: 3198: 3191: 3190: 3139: 3134: 3131: 3095: 2997: 2941: 2847: 2789: 2755:Darkness Shines 2731: 2694: 2686: 2669: 2635: 2628: 2621: 2604: 2594: 2590: 2589: 2582: 2547: 2543: 2540: 2522:Darkness Shines 2518: 2495: 2490:(and moved to) 2449: 2408: 2372: 2328: 2265: 2215: 2181: 2164:Darkness Shines 2143: 2112:Darkness Shines 2091: 2066:Darkness Shines 2045: 2010:Darkness Shines 1984: 1951:Darkness Shines 1929: 1915:Darkness Shines 1894: 1880:Darkness Shines 1859: 1827:Darkness Shines 1790:Darkness Shines 1777: 1748: 1730:Darkness Shines 1728:for the claim? 1705: 1634: 1594: 1543: 1505: 1464: 1421: 1396: 1392:not the summary 1319: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1288: 1249: 1209: 1182: 1159: 1153: 1126: 1074: 1028: 998: 921: 857: 763: 705: 662: 611: 565: 550: 532:109.154.105.168 510: 495:Darkness Shines 491: 468: 400: 397: 394: 391: 390: 366: 361: 359: 339: 293: 290: 287: 284: 283: 257: 252: 250: 230: 198: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 6007: 6005: 5997: 5996: 5991: 5986: 5981: 5976: 5971: 5966: 5956: 5955: 5932: 5931: 5924: 5877: 5876: 5868:Added archive 5846: 5843: 5840: 5839: 5815: 5814: 5807: 5793: 5792: 5775: 5764: 5761: 5758: 5757: 5733: 5732: 5725: 5711: 5710: 5693: 5682: 5679: 5675: 5674: 5662: 5661: 5657: 5623: 5622: 5603: 5592: 5589: 5585: 5584: 5543: 5542: 5538: 5522: 5521:Source removed 5519: 5511: 5510: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5495: 5448: 5321: 5320: 5301: 5285:182.177.22.143 5272:182.177.22.143 5264: 5263: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5206: 5205: 5178: 5177: 5155: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4878: 4877: 4876: 4872: 4869: 4862: 4859: 4848: 4837: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4621: 4604: 4587: 4559: 4542: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4502: 4492: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4424: 4423: 4421: 4416: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4390:182.177.22.143 4377:182.177.22.143 4370: 4348: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4301: 4300: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4243: 4213: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 3994: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3947: 3946: 3929: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3885: 3875: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3829: 3828: 3826: 3821: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3774: 3773: 3745: 3744: 3728:182.177.22.143 3715:182.177.22.143 3708: 3685: 3684: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3596: 3595: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3471: 3442: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3353: 3336: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3268: 3258: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3200: 3199: 3197: 3192: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3166:182.177.22.143 3153:182.177.22.143 3146: 3124: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3075: 3074: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2934: 2933: 2914: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2864: 2765: 2748: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2708: 2702: 2692: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2630: 2629: 2627: 2622: 2620: 2617: 2576: 2575: 2539: 2536: 2534: 2517: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2426: 2425: 2390: 2389: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2283: 2282: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2160: 2108: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2033: 2021: 2020: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1788:Really? Were? 1776: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1656: 1655: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1612: 1611: 1575: 1574: 1571: 1568: 1561: 1560: 1523: 1522: 1482: 1481: 1439: 1438: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1370: 1369: 1359:New York Times 1353: 1347: 1337: 1328: 1300: 1281: 1280: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1227: 1226: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1176: 1175: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1115: 1114: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1046: 1045: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 950: 949: 946: 939: 938: 920:additions). -- 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 806:Foreign Policy 801: 800: 797: 793: 790: 783: 782: 781: 780: 757: 756: 726: 725: 724: 723: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 549: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 490: 487: 467: 464: 461: 460: 453:the discussion 445: 433: 432: 429: 428: 425: 424: 417:Low-importance 413: 407: 406: 404: 401:India articles 372: 371: 355: 343: 342: 340:Low‑importance 334: 322: 321: 318: 317: 310:Low-importance 306: 300: 299: 297: 263: 262: 246: 234: 233: 231:Low‑importance 225: 213: 212: 206: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6006: 5995: 5992: 5990: 5987: 5985: 5982: 5980: 5977: 5975: 5972: 5970: 5967: 5965: 5962: 5961: 5959: 5952: 5951: 5946: 5941: 5940: 5929: 5925: 5922: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5909: 5903: 5899: 5895: 5891: 5885: 5880: 5875: 5871: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5863: 5859: 5855: 5850: 5844: 5838: 5837: 5833: 5829: 5825: 5821: 5820: 5812: 5808: 5805: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5797: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5784: 5780: 5776: 5773: 5769: 5768: 5762: 5756: 5755: 5751: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5738: 5730: 5726: 5723: 5719: 5718: 5717: 5715: 5708: 5707: 5706: 5702: 5698: 5694: 5691: 5687: 5686: 5680: 5672: 5667: 5664: 5660: 5656: 5655: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5638: 5629: 5620: 5617:parameter to 5608: 5604: 5597: 5596: 5590: 5580: 5567: 5559: 5555: 5548: 5545: 5541: 5537: 5536: 5532: 5528: 5520: 5515: 5494: 5489: 5484: 5480: 5476: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5463: 5462: 5457: 5456: 5449: 5447: 5443: 5439: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5428: 5423: 5419: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5408: 5403: 5399: 5395: 5391: 5387: 5384:I'm looking. 5383: 5382: 5381: 5377: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5358: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5331: 5327: 5323: 5322: 5319: 5314: 5309: 5305: 5302: 5298: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5281: 5277: 5273: 5269: 5266: 5265: 5262: 5257: 5256: 5251: 5250: 5244: 5241: 5240: 5230: 5225: 5224: 5219: 5218: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5204: 5201: 5196: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5176: 5173: 5168: 5159: 5156: 5154: 5149: 5148: 5143: 5142: 5136: 5134: 5133: 5128: 5123: 5122: 5117: 5116: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5104: 5100: 5096: 5093: 5092: 5083: 5078: 5077: 5072: 5071: 5064: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5054: 5053: 5048: 5047: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5020: 5019: 5014: 5013: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4993: 4989: 4980: 4975: 4974: 4969: 4968: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4949: 4945: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4920: 4916: 4905: 4892: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4873: 4870: 4867: 4863: 4860: 4857: 4856: 4854: 4849: 4846: 4845:serious piece 4842: 4838: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4816: 4811: 4810: 4805: 4804: 4798: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4765: 4764: 4759: 4758: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4746: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4724: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4712: 4711: 4706: 4705: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4686: 4681: 4676: 4675: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4654: 4650: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4622: 4620: 4616: 4612: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4599: 4595: 4591: 4588: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4567: 4563: 4560: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4543: 4541: 4536: 4535: 4530: 4529: 4522: 4518: 4515: 4514: 4506: 4503: 4500: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4490: 4489: 4480: 4477: 4474: 4473: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4444: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4435: 4432: 4426: 4425: 4420: 4417: 4412: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4371: 4369: 4366: 4361: 4352: 4349: 4347: 4342: 4337: 4332: 4329: 4328: 4323: 4318: 4317: 4312: 4311: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4284: 4280: 4275: 4274: 4269: 4268: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4256: 4252: 4247: 4244: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4217: 4214: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4197: 4196: 4189: 4184: 4183: 4178: 4177: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4165: 4161: 4157: 4149: 4144: 4143: 4138: 4137: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4112: 4107: 4106: 4101: 4100: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4034: 4033: 4028: 4027: 4021: 4016: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3995: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3978: 3977: 3972: 3967: 3966: 3961: 3960: 3954: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3928: 3923: 3922: 3917: 3916: 3910: 3905: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3889: 3886: 3883: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3863: 3862: 3859: 3856: 3855: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3840: 3837: 3831: 3830: 3825: 3824:Lede material 3822: 3817: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3793: 3792: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3769: 3764: 3755: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3709: 3707: 3704: 3699: 3690: 3687: 3686: 3681: 3678: 3677: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3626: 3625: 3619: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3579: 3569: 3564: 3559: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3547: 3546: 3541: 3540: 3533: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3521: 3516: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3504: 3503: 3498: 3497: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3484: 3479: 3475: 3472: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3443: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3428: 3427:Time Magazine 3424: 3421: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3404:Thank you! — 3403: 3402: 3401: 3396: 3395: 3390: 3389: 3383: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3363: 3357: 3354: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3337: 3335: 3330: 3329: 3324: 3323: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3286: 3281: 3280: 3272: 3269: 3266: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3256: 3255: 3246: 3243: 3240: 3239: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3211: 3208: 3202: 3201: 3196: 3193: 3188: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3150: 3147: 3145: 3142: 3137: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3119: 3118: 3111: 3106: 3105: 3100: 3099: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3058: 3057: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3034: 3029: 3024: 3020: 3019:American Jews 3015: 3014: 3013: 3008: 3007: 3002: 3001: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2952: 2951: 2946: 2945: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2932: 2927: 2922: 2918: 2915: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2898: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2865: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2852: 2851: 2845: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2800: 2799: 2794: 2793: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2769: 2766: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2742: 2741: 2736: 2735: 2728: 2724: 2721: 2720: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2690: 2689: 2680: 2677: 2674: 2673: 2666: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2638: 2632: 2631: 2626: 2623: 2618: 2616: 2615: 2609: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2587: 2581: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2535: 2532: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2505: 2500: 2499: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2484: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2460: 2459: 2454: 2453: 2447: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2424: 2419: 2418: 2413: 2412: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2388: 2383: 2382: 2377: 2376: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2281: 2276: 2275: 2270: 2269: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2231: 2226: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2197: 2192: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2159: 2154: 2153: 2148: 2147: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2107: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2056: 2055: 2050: 2049: 2043: 2038: 2034: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1982: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1933: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1898: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1870: 1869: 1864: 1863: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842:There it was. 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1775:Section break 1774: 1764: 1759: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1746: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1716: 1715: 1710: 1709: 1703: 1698: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1673: 1669: 1667: 1663: 1662:Time Magazine 1658: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1645: 1644: 1639: 1638: 1627: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1604: 1599: 1598: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1559: 1554: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1480: 1475: 1474: 1469: 1468: 1461: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1437: 1432: 1431: 1426: 1425: 1418: 1417: 1412: 1407: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1367: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1354: 1351: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1331:User:Rvd4life 1329: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1301: 1299: 1292: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1265: 1260: 1259: 1254: 1253: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1220: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1158: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1142: 1137: 1136: 1131: 1130: 1124: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1097: 1090: 1085: 1084: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1039: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1026: 1022: 1021: 1014: 1009: 1008: 1003: 1002: 995: 990: 989: 988: 984: 980: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 947: 944: 943: 942: 937: 932: 931: 926: 925: 919: 914: 913: 912: 911: 907: 903: 889: 885: 881: 876: 875: 873: 868: 867: 862: 861: 855: 850: 849: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 817: 813: 808: 807: 798: 794: 791: 788: 787: 786: 779: 774: 773: 768: 767: 761: 760: 759: 758: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 732: 728: 727: 721: 716: 715: 710: 709: 702: 701: 699: 695: 691: 686: 678: 673: 672: 667: 666: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 646:86.181.135.97 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 627: 621: 615: 608: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 576: 575: 570: 569: 563: 559: 555: 547: 541: 537: 533: 528: 527: 526: 521: 520: 515: 514: 507: 506: 505: 504: 500: 496: 488: 486: 485: 481: 477: 473: 466:Copyright vio 465: 458: 454: 450: 446: 443: 439: 438: 422: 418: 412: 409: 408: 405: 388: 387: 382: 378: 377: 369: 358: 356: 353: 349: 348: 344: 338: 335: 332: 328: 315: 311: 305: 302: 301: 298: 281: 277: 273: 269: 268: 260: 249: 247: 244: 240: 239: 235: 229: 226: 223: 219: 214: 210: 204: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 5936: 5933: 5908:source check 5887: 5881: 5878: 5851: 5848: 5823: 5822: 5816: 5795: 5794: 5786: 5741: 5740: 5734: 5713: 5712: 5704: 5666: 5658: 5636: 5630: 5626: 5618: 5607:edit request 5557: 5547: 5539: 5524: 5513: 5479:WP:COATTRACK 5460: 5454: 5418:this version 5398:this version 5394:this version 5390:This version 5386:This version 5346:) belong in 5303: 5267: 5254: 5248: 5222: 5216: 5157: 5146: 5140: 5120: 5114: 5094: 5075: 5069: 5051: 5045: 5017: 5011: 4985: 4972: 4966: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4943: 4939: 4931: 4913: 4902: 4895:. Retrieved 4808: 4802: 4778: 4774: 4762: 4756: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4709: 4703: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4678: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4659: 4652: 4645: 4623: 4606: 4589: 4561: 4544: 4533: 4527: 4516: 4504: 4498: 4491: 4470: 4451: 4442: 4436: 4430: 4427: 4410: 4372: 4350: 4330: 4315: 4309: 4285: 4272: 4266: 4245: 4215: 4198: 4181: 4175: 4141: 4135: 4104: 4098: 4031: 4025: 4019: 3996: 3979: 3964: 3958: 3931: 3920: 3914: 3903: 3899: 3887: 3881: 3874: 3852: 3848: 3847:summarised. 3841: 3835: 3832: 3815: 3796: 3790: 3753: 3710: 3688: 3679: 3629: 3623: 3580: 3544: 3538: 3501: 3495: 3473: 3452: 3449:WP:TERRORIST 3444: 3422: 3393: 3387: 3359: 3355: 3338: 3327: 3321: 3311: 3291:WP:TERRORIST 3282: 3270: 3264: 3257: 3236: 3228:WP:TERRORIST 3223: 3212: 3206: 3203: 3186: 3148: 3126: 3120: 3103: 3097: 3059: 3005: 2999: 2949: 2943: 2916: 2899: 2874: 2870: 2855: 2849: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2797: 2791: 2767: 2750: 2739: 2733: 2722: 2710: 2704: 2698: 2691: 2670: 2652: 2642: 2636: 2633: 2592: 2591: 2583: 2553: 2533: 2519: 2503: 2497: 2457: 2451: 2445: 2427: 2416: 2410: 2391: 2380: 2374: 2349: 2336: 2330: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2284: 2273: 2267: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2223: 2217: 2212: 2189: 2183: 2177: 2151: 2145: 2125: 2099: 2093: 2083: 2079: 2053: 2047: 2035: 2030: 1992: 1986: 1979: 1937: 1931: 1902: 1896: 1867: 1861: 1756: 1750: 1713: 1707: 1678: 1642: 1636: 1631: 1613: 1602: 1596: 1576: 1562: 1551: 1545: 1524: 1513: 1507: 1483: 1472: 1466: 1459: 1440: 1429: 1423: 1404: 1398: 1391: 1390:No, that is 1371: 1363: 1357: 1303: 1282: 1276: 1257: 1251: 1217: 1211: 1205: 1190: 1184: 1149: 1134: 1128: 1099: 1082: 1076: 1036: 1030: 1006: 1000: 951: 940: 929: 923: 917: 899: 865: 859: 853: 804: 802: 784: 771: 765: 744:irrelevant. 741: 713: 707: 670: 664: 573: 567: 557: 553: 551: 518: 512: 492: 469: 456: 416: 386:project page 384: 374: 368:India portal 309: 276:project page 265: 209:WikiProjects 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 5796:Don't panic 5714:Don't panic 5483:regentspark 5422:regentspark 5402:regentspark 5352:regentspark 5308:regentspark 5295:) has made 5099:Rsrikanth05 4897:14 February 4841:reminiscing 4733:Afghanistan 4566:independent 4564:: I see no 4400:) has made 4336:regentspark 4290:Rsrikanth05 3785:RegentsPark 3781:WP:COATRACK 3738:) has made 3642:Rsrikanth05 3585:Rsrikanth05 3558:regentspark 3532:WP:COATRACK 3515:regentspark 3478:regentspark 3316:WP:COATRACK 3300:WP:COATRACK 3285:WP:COATRACK 3220:WP:COATRACK 3176:) has made 3064:Rsrikanth05 3023:regentspark 2921:regentspark 2665:RegentsPark 1702:WP:COATRACK 1620:WP:COATRACK 1577:What else? 1502:WP:COATRACK 738:WP:COATRACK 731:WP:COATRACK 562:WP:COATRACK 489:Balochistan 285:Afghanistan 272:Afghanistan 228:Afghanistan 199:Start-class 148:free images 31:not a forum 5958:Categories 5945:Report bug 5659:References 5644:. Thanks, 5611:|answered= 5540:References 4658:. It does 4644:is on the 3904:repeatedly 2774:policy. — 2619:Discussion 2578:See also: 474:. Thanks, 280:discussion 5928:this tool 5921:this tool 5637:Not done: 5566:cite news 4948:WP:BURDEN 4936:WP:BURDEN 4731:OUP p175 4646:inclusion 4642:WP:BURDEN 4505:Option 2: 4499:Option 1: 4462:WP:BURDEN 4225:WP:WEIGHT 4089:WP:WEIGHT 3888:Option 2: 3882:Option 1: 3689:Option 1: 3680:Option 1: 3362:WP:WEASEL 3271:Option 2: 3265:Option 1: 2711:Option 3: 2705:Option 2: 2699:Option 1: 2486:Taken to 2026:Quoting: 1123:WP:BURDEN 742:even more 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 5934:Cheers.— 5804:non-free 5722:non-free 5646:Celestra 5642:WP:DATED 5475:this one 5455:lTopGunl 5293:contribs 5268:Option 2 5249:lTopGunl 5217:lTopGunl 5158:Option 1 5141:lTopGunl 5115:lTopGunl 5095:Option 1 5070:lTopGunl 5046:lTopGunl 5012:lTopGunl 4967:lTopGunl 4961:does not 4932:does not 4875:region : 4803:lTopGunl 4797:WP:SYNTH 4757:lTopGunl 4704:lTopGunl 4689:opposite 4670:mention 4628:sarvajna 4624:Option 1 4607:Option 1 4590:Option 1 4562:Option 1 4545:Option 1 4528:lTopGunl 4517:Option 2 4398:contribs 4373:Option 1 4351:Option 2 4331:Option 2 4310:lTopGunl 4286:Option 2 4267:lTopGunl 4246:Option 2 4216:Option 1 4199:Option 2 4176:lTopGunl 4136:lTopGunl 4099:lTopGunl 4026:lTopGunl 3980:Option 1 3959:lTopGunl 3932:Option 2 3915:lTopGunl 3900:Option 1 3791:lTopGunl 3736:contribs 3711:Option 2 3624:lTopGunl 3581:Option 2 3539:lTopGunl 3496:lTopGunl 3474:Option 2 3445:Option 2 3423:Option 1 3388:lTopGunl 3356:Option 2 3339:Option 1 3322:lTopGunl 3174:contribs 3149:Option 2 3127:Option 1 3121:Option 1 3098:lTopGunl 3060:Option 2 3000:lTopGunl 2944:lTopGunl 2900:Option 1 2850:lTopGunl 2792:lTopGunl 2768:Option 1 2751:Option 1 2734:lTopGunl 2723:Option 2 2657:Czarkoff 2608:contribs 2595:Whenaxis 2498:lTopGunl 2452:lTopGunl 2411:lTopGunl 2375:lTopGunl 2331:lTopGunl 2268:lTopGunl 2218:lTopGunl 2184:lTopGunl 2146:lTopGunl 2094:lTopGunl 2048:lTopGunl 1987:lTopGunl 1932:lTopGunl 1897:lTopGunl 1862:lTopGunl 1751:lTopGunl 1708:lTopGunl 1637:lTopGunl 1597:lTopGunl 1546:lTopGunl 1508:lTopGunl 1467:lTopGunl 1424:lTopGunl 1399:lTopGunl 1252:lTopGunl 1212:lTopGunl 1185:lTopGunl 1129:lTopGunl 1100:Disagree 1077:lTopGunl 1031:lTopGunl 1001:lTopGunl 924:lTopGunl 860:lTopGunl 832:predate 766:lTopGunl 733:anymore 708:lTopGunl 665:lTopGunl 568:lTopGunl 560:is what 558:Pakistan 554:Pakistan 513:lTopGunl 449:deletion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 5858:my edit 5488:comment 5427:comment 5407:comment 5357:comment 5313:comment 5304:Comment 4944:include 4341:comment 4093:WP:NPOV 3997:Comment 3754:Indians 3563:comment 3520:comment 3483:comment 3457:WP:NPOV 3232:WP:NPOV 3028:comment 2926:comment 2917:Comment 2812:" and " 2772:WP:NPOV 2727:WP:NPOV 2649:WP:NPOV 2558:history 2262:WP:MPOV 1745:WP:NPOV 1277:Summary 1206:Closure 1150:Comment 994:Taliban 796:Taiba). 419:on the 312:on the 154:WP refs 142:scholar 5575:|date= 5438:AshLin 5372:AshLin 5326:AshLin 4938:is on 4915:AshLin 4664:Infact 4611:AshLin 4472:Salvio 4466:WP:RSN 4251:AshLin 4229:WP:DUE 3909:weight 3854:Salvio 3312:events 3238:Salvio 2983:AshLin 2838:" or " 2672:Salvio 2325:troops 2287:AshLin 2247:AshLin 2088:WP:POV 2080:troops 1460:states 1368:, etc. 1350:AshLin 1104:AshLin 854:fixing 644:topic 205:scale. 126:Google 5615:|ans= 5605:This 5030:JCAla 4995:JCAla 4957:state 4666:, it 4594:JCAla 4458:WP:OR 4443:seems 4233:Mar4d 4203:JCAla 4160:JCAla 4119:JCAla 4074:JCAla 4001:JCAla 3911:. -- 3683:(UTC) 3657:JCAla 3603:JCAla 3461:Mar4d 3432:JCAla 3082:JCAla 3043:JCAla 2964:JCAla 2904:JCAla 2566:watch 2562:links 2470:JCAla 2431:JCAla 2394:JCAla 2357:JCAla 2321:today 2303:JCAla 2130:Mar4d 2084:proof 2006:WP:OR 1846:JCAla 1812:JCAla 1726:WP:RS 1697:WP:OR 1680:JCAla 1671:lead. 1579:JCAla 1528:JCAla 1487:JCAla 1444:JCAla 1375:JCAla 1342:also 1320:Focus 1236:JCAla 1165:Mar4d 1061:Mar4d 979:JCAla 962:JCAla 902:JCAla 880:JCAla 838:JCAla 812:JCAla 746:Mar4d 690:JCAla 631:JCAla 593:Mar4d 476:Mar4d 392:India 381:India 337:India 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 5832:talk 5750:talk 5650:talk 5579:help 5531:talk 5461:talk 5442:talk 5376:talk 5342:and 5330:talk 5289:talk 5276:talk 5255:talk 5223:talk 5199:XЯaɣ 5171:XЯaɣ 5147:talk 5121:talk 5103:talk 5076:talk 5052:talk 5034:talk 5018:talk 4999:talk 4973:talk 4919:talk 4899:2012 4809:talk 4787:talk 4763:talk 4745:talk 4710:talk 4697:half 4672:this 4668:does 4632:talk 4615:talk 4598:talk 4581:talk 4573:WP:V 4553:talk 4534:talk 4448:WP:V 4394:talk 4381:talk 4364:XЯaɣ 4316:talk 4294:talk 4273:talk 4255:talk 4237:talk 4207:talk 4182:talk 4164:talk 4142:talk 4123:talk 4105:talk 4095:. -- 4078:talk 4048:talk 4032:talk 4020:just 4005:talk 3988:talk 3965:talk 3940:talk 3921:talk 3797:talk 3787:. -- 3767:XЯaɣ 3732:talk 3719:talk 3702:XЯaɣ 3661:talk 3646:talk 3630:talk 3620:. -- 3607:talk 3589:talk 3545:talk 3502:talk 3465:talk 3436:talk 3410:talk 3394:talk 3372:talk 3347:talk 3328:talk 3170:talk 3157:talk 3140:XЯaɣ 3104:talk 3086:talk 3068:talk 3047:talk 3006:talk 2987:talk 2968:talk 2950:talk 2908:talk 2883:talk 2856:talk 2826:talk 2816:". " 2798:talk 2780:talk 2759:talk 2740:talk 2602:talk 2570:logs 2554:talk 2550:edit 2526:talk 2504:talk 2494:. -- 2474:talk 2458:talk 2435:talk 2417:talk 2398:talk 2381:talk 2361:talk 2337:talk 2307:talk 2291:talk 2274:talk 2264:. -- 2251:talk 2224:talk 2190:talk 2168:talk 2152:talk 2134:talk 2116:talk 2100:talk 2090:. -- 2070:talk 2054:talk 2014:talk 1993:talk 1955:talk 1938:talk 1919:talk 1903:talk 1884:talk 1868:talk 1850:talk 1831:talk 1816:talk 1794:talk 1757:talk 1747:. -- 1734:talk 1714:talk 1684:talk 1643:talk 1603:talk 1583:talk 1552:talk 1532:talk 1514:talk 1504:. -- 1491:talk 1473:talk 1448:talk 1430:talk 1405:talk 1379:talk 1258:talk 1240:talk 1218:talk 1191:talk 1169:talk 1135:talk 1108:talk 1083:talk 1065:talk 1037:talk 1025:this 1007:talk 983:talk 966:talk 930:talk 906:talk 884:talk 866:talk 842:talk 816:talk 772:talk 750:talk 714:talk 694:talk 671:talk 650:talk 635:talk 605:See 597:talk 574:talk 536:talk 519:talk 499:talk 480:talk 457:keep 455:was 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 5902:RfC 5872:to 5613:or 5558:ABC 5194:ℬig 5166:ℬig 4940:all 4660:not 4501:Yes 4453:iff 4359:ℬig 3884:Yes 3762:ℬig 3697:ℬig 3453:who 3304:ISI 3135:ℬig 2446:has 2317:one 1365:PBS 1055:or 918:own 411:Low 304:Low 176:TWL 5960:: 5915:. 5910:}} 5906:{{ 5834:) 5826:-- 5752:) 5744:-- 5652:) 5619:no 5570:: 5568:}} 5564:{{ 5556:. 5533:) 5444:) 5378:) 5332:) 5291:• 5283:— 5278:) 5213:-- 5188:-- 5105:) 5066:-- 5036:) 5001:) 4921:) 4901:. 4789:) 4747:) 4674:: 4655:. 4634:) 4617:) 4600:) 4583:) 4555:) 4507:No 4396:• 4388:— 4383:) 4334:-- 4296:) 4257:) 4239:) 4209:) 4166:) 4125:) 4080:) 4050:) 4007:) 3990:) 3942:) 3890:No 3734:• 3726:— 3721:) 3663:) 3648:) 3609:) 3591:) 3556:-- 3467:) 3459:. 3438:) 3412:) 3374:) 3349:) 3234:. 3172:• 3164:— 3159:) 3088:) 3070:) 3049:) 2996:-- 2989:) 2970:) 2910:) 2885:) 2828:) 2782:) 2761:) 2568:| 2564:| 2560:| 2556:| 2552:| 2528:) 2476:) 2437:) 2400:) 2363:) 2309:) 2293:) 2253:) 2178:no 2170:) 2136:) 2118:) 2072:) 2044:-- 2016:) 1957:) 1928:-- 1921:) 1893:-- 1886:) 1852:) 1833:) 1818:) 1810:. 1796:) 1736:) 1686:) 1633:-- 1585:) 1534:) 1493:) 1450:) 1381:) 1362:, 1324:: 1296:: 1242:) 1171:) 1160:}} 1154:{{ 1110:) 1067:) 997:-- 985:) 968:) 956:, 908:) 886:) 844:) 818:) 752:) 696:) 661:-- 652:) 637:) 599:) 538:) 509:-- 501:) 482:) 156:) 54:; 5947:) 5943:( 5930:. 5923:. 5830:( 5748:( 5648:( 5581:) 5577:( 5560:. 5529:( 5490:) 5486:( 5464:) 5458:( 5440:( 5429:) 5425:( 5409:) 5405:( 5374:( 5359:) 5355:( 5328:( 5315:) 5311:( 5287:( 5274:( 5258:) 5252:( 5226:) 5220:( 5191:Ð 5163:Ð 5150:) 5144:( 5124:) 5118:( 5101:( 5079:) 5073:( 5055:) 5049:( 5032:( 5021:) 5015:( 4997:( 4976:) 4970:( 4917:( 4868:. 4812:) 4806:( 4785:( 4766:) 4760:( 4743:( 4713:) 4707:( 4682:" 4677:" 4630:( 4613:( 4596:( 4579:( 4551:( 4537:) 4531:( 4392:( 4379:( 4356:Ð 4343:) 4339:( 4319:) 4313:( 4292:( 4276:) 4270:( 4253:( 4235:( 4205:( 4185:) 4179:( 4162:( 4145:) 4139:( 4121:( 4108:) 4102:( 4076:( 4046:( 4035:) 4029:( 4003:( 3986:( 3968:) 3962:( 3938:( 3924:) 3918:( 3800:) 3794:( 3759:Ð 3730:( 3717:( 3694:Ð 3659:( 3644:( 3633:) 3627:( 3605:( 3587:( 3565:) 3561:( 3548:) 3542:( 3522:) 3518:( 3505:) 3499:( 3485:) 3481:( 3463:( 3434:( 3408:( 3397:) 3391:( 3370:( 3345:( 3331:) 3325:( 3287:) 3168:( 3155:( 3132:Ð 3107:) 3101:( 3084:( 3066:( 3045:( 3030:) 3026:( 3009:) 3003:( 2985:( 2966:( 2953:) 2947:( 2928:) 2924:( 2906:( 2881:( 2859:) 2853:( 2834:" 2824:( 2801:) 2795:( 2778:( 2757:( 2743:) 2737:( 2605:· 2572:) 2548:( 2524:( 2507:) 2501:( 2472:( 2461:) 2455:( 2433:( 2420:) 2414:( 2396:( 2384:) 2378:( 2359:( 2340:) 2334:( 2305:( 2289:( 2277:) 2271:( 2249:( 2227:) 2221:( 2193:) 2187:( 2166:( 2155:) 2149:( 2132:( 2114:( 2103:) 2097:( 2068:( 2057:) 2051:( 2039:" 2029:" 2012:( 1996:) 1990:( 1953:( 1941:) 1935:( 1917:( 1906:) 1900:( 1882:( 1871:) 1865:( 1848:( 1829:( 1814:( 1792:( 1760:) 1754:( 1732:( 1717:) 1711:( 1682:( 1646:) 1640:( 1622:. 1606:) 1600:( 1581:( 1555:) 1549:( 1530:( 1517:) 1511:( 1489:( 1476:) 1470:( 1446:( 1433:) 1427:( 1408:) 1402:( 1377:( 1317:m 1314:a 1311:e 1308:r 1305:D 1279:: 1261:) 1255:( 1238:( 1221:) 1215:( 1194:) 1188:( 1167:( 1138:) 1132:( 1106:( 1086:) 1080:( 1063:( 1040:) 1034:( 1010:) 1004:( 981:( 964:( 933:) 927:( 904:( 882:( 869:) 863:( 840:( 814:( 775:) 769:( 748:( 717:) 711:( 692:( 674:) 668:( 648:( 633:( 595:( 577:) 571:( 534:( 522:) 516:( 497:( 478:( 459:. 423:. 389:. 316:. 282:. 211:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index