Talk:Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts

POV tag
I was surprised to see you add a POV tag. The instructions at Template:POV require you to explain the POV issues on the talk page before placing the POV tag, which you have not done. Note also that that the POV label applies to the text of the article, not to sources. (See WP:BIASED and WP:NPOV). So just saying that the sources are biased is not enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for your note. As you can see above at Template:Did you know nominations/Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, I noted that the sources utilized are not neutral and that then "comes through in the article".  As that template is transcluded onto this page, my concerns are noted on this talk page.  As my goal (through the discussion related to the DYK nomination) is to get the article to a point where it c an run at DYK on the Main Page, I'm happy to work with you and anyone else who is interested to improve the article as well as answer any specific questions you may have.  Also, I should note for the record that per this discussion, there was no consensus to require a talk page discussion prior to adding a POV tag (though I agree that discussion is valuable for moving the article forward).  I look forward to working with you to improve the article.  Best, Mifter (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi., Users have made various changes to the page, added some more sources, as elaborated below and as seen in the main article too. Does the POV tag still need to be here? Regards, DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Below" mainly meant here: Talk:Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts, for easier navigation :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the note and link :), I'll take a look and reply shortly. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Mifter will wait for you. Also wanted to add, as you can see and appreciate, DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 had done a lot of good work to improve this article. So we would like to get rid of the maintenance tags as well. thanks for your feedback. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi - I've removed the tags, thank you for your work improving the article and it sourcing.  It is not perfect, but certainly improved to the point where I am happy to remove the tags.  Best, Mifter (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Where do "thousand cuts" come from?
It is possible that the "thousand cuts" phrasing might have been invented by Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq, but the ideas go back to the time of partition or even before. See: Aparna Pande, cited in the lead, has an extensive discussion of how Pakistan's persistent goal has been to achieve "parity" with India, and such parity can be achieved only if India is cut down to size in some form. Muhammad Zubair, in a review of Christine Fair's Pakisan Army's Way of War, says:

I haven't read enough of Fair's book to gather this myself, but we can take Zubair's summary as being accurate of her views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Bhutto. Balbir Punj op-ed is no good. In 2014, Punj was more a BJP politician than a journalist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bhutto is not credited with the quote about thousand cuts, he is only mentioned for his quote of a thousand year with India. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I also can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Zia ul-Haq. The India Times article is really poor, and the Dogra book doesn't say very much. Jaffrelot confirms the strategy of "bleeding India" throughout the Zia regime, but it seems to have been mostly limited to Punjab and Kashmir. According to Kanwal the "thousand cuts" started a "decade ago", i.e., around 1990. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that Sirrs the term "thousand cuts" in connection with Zia. But I think he is using it in a general way, with a term that he picked up from somewhere. He gives five citations there, none of which have the terms "bleeding India" or "thousand cuts". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Kautilya3, Katoch credits Zia in his paper. Please check the last couple of lines in page 2. This book by Kanwal in his preface and other places also talks about it. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * And here is another that credits Zia -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

, I can certainly see that the "thousand cuts" phrase got used after 1990. I have provided a quotation from Hamid Gul. But we don't have comparable information for Zia ul-Haq. Zia did start the Punjab insurgency and he trained Kashmiri militants through Jamaat-e-Islami. (I have reliable information about it.) But I can't see a paradigm of "thousand cuts" being voiced by him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already pointed out that Kanwal places the "thousand cuts" phrase to around 1990. That was after Zia.
 * Atul Singh does not specify the source of his information. It could well be Indian military sources, and he might have thought it plausible. But that is not enough to attribute it to Zia by name.
 * Katoch provides two sources: a book called Zia and After, which does not have any mention of "thousand cuts"; and an Asian Age article by S. K. Sinha which is titled "The Thousand Cuts". Sinha does attribute it to Zia, but we have no idea how he learnt this.
 * Kautilya3, I understand your point. Since these reliable sources credit Zia for the phrase, we should mention this for now as it is. If in future, we find a conflicting source then we can possibly think of replacing or expanding that. Another interesting obsevation is that Zia ruled till 1988 which is not very far from 1990. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not reliable sources, in my view. Katoch is the director of the institute publishing in its in-house journal. So essentially self-published. Atul Singh is also writing in his own organisation's web page. Kanwal's book is slightly better because it is made up of newspaper columns. So at least some editor might have looked through them. I personally found his writing to be responsible. I can't say that for the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence now that Bhutto had initiated the "thousand cuts" phraseology. The rest of the article needs to be adjusted to this fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 yes, well done, this was an excellent find and adding it has basically filled in the missing pieces of puzzle. Glad that you were able to add it before the page goes live on main page. The DYK is planned to go live 5 hours from now. cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Bhutto's involvement in this policy changes the character of the whole thing. It now becomes much more of a 'national' policy than a mere military tactic. The page has suddenly become much more interesting and substantial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please consider for insertion into article under "origins"
, Currently on Wikipedia if you type Death by a thousand cuts, it redirects to Lingchi. There is also a disambiguation page for Death by a thousand cuts (disambiguation). So under the section of "Origins" - Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, something should be mentioned that the concept of a "thousand cuts" is much older. A small line or two. Also, there is an article in the DAWN titled "Death by a thousand cuts" dated May 05, 2009 which says the following:

So currently in the article the origin of the phrase just has to do with India and Pakistan. I think variations of the term should also be noted... What are your thoughts? Maybe including this can help reduce POV and bias that is being talked about in the template. Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This answers your above question in a way related to where the phrase "thousand cuts" comes from. It is older than Pakistan. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * DiplomatTesterMan and Thanks a lot guys for your kind comments and edits here. Yes, indeed, from what I have read, the thound cuts phrase has chinese origins (a slow and cruel death). The references pointed by DTM are also something that I had came across while looking for it. I think it would be a good to start an Origin section to talk about the guerilla tactics and CIA-soviet battle references. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "death by thousand cuts" is a widely used phrase in connection with the Afghan-Soviet War. There are tons of sources for it. I also know that, it was used earlier by Chairman Mao as his guerrilla warfare strategy against Nationalist China. But the "bleeding India" terminology was apparently used by Pakistan much earlier than the Afghan war (from the 60s, in fact). After the Afghan war, they combined the two phrases. What they mean by it is still unclear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , Ok. So we all know where "thousand cuts" comes from :D I am the one who is late here :D
 * So now we are looking for sources which connect it directly with Pakistan, and specifically "bleeding India" and before 1970, as outlined in above sections too. Ok, will keep looking.
 * Something funny I read just now about all this in an article titled "Only 960 years left for Bhutto’s war" in The Sunday Guardian:
 * Can this be included? If the thousand years war was declared by the Pak PM, and no one has "undeclared" it, then the war really does have over 900 years left :D (Of course, it's by MJ Akbar, if you know what I mean, which is besides the point.) Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Can this be included? If the thousand years war was declared by the Pak PM, and no one has "undeclared" it, then the war really does have over 900 years left :D (Of course, it's by MJ Akbar, if you know what I mean, which is besides the point.) Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * hi DiplomatTesterMan, The thousand year is already well referenced with Bhutto's site So we are covered there. The quote above is from Akbar in an opinion piece. Although this is an interesting observation, so thanks for sharing, but I dont think this quote or its assertions can go into the article. Some more third party journals or even Pakistani sources that talk about the "Bleed India by thousands" policy should be included.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. Was more on the light side, but yes, shouldn't go in the main article. More Pakistani sources and third party...hmmmm . DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "thousand year war" is off-topic and should be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Thousand year war" should be removed from the article or this comment I put above should be removed from this page for being off topic? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan, I think Kautilya3 is suggesting to remove 1000 years from the article. I do not have very strong opinions to keep it in article, but he did say that, and one of the sources CLAWs Journal, explains it in a way that suggests the evolution of the bleed India policy. for now lets focus on adding and expanding the article, and then we can take a look at what all things to remove as UNDUE. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though this is off-topic, I don't agree that the thousand year war phrase is "well-referenced". Bhutto did say it, but in a speech where he was accepting a cease-fire for the 1965 Kashmir War. A scholar might regard it as a face-saving slogan meant for domestic consumption. Bhutto did not meddle in Kashmir after 1965 till his death. He is often described as a "demagogue". So we can't take his utterances at face value. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Pakistani Prime Minister ZA Bhutto, who declared a thousand year war against India during his speech to the United Nations Security Council in 1976. ".Kautilya3, Various inferences can be made out of it but he did say this on a very important international forum, and historians have mentioned this speech while discussion the Bleed India policy, so I see here strong reasons to keep this in article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Issues pointed in Section DYK
Hi, DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, Mifter has shared his concerns Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts. I am adding my comments to each one of these, appreciate if you guys can also review the same and suggest your opinions on this in these sub sections.

Conventional war
"The war clarified that Kashmir could no longer be taken from India by a conventional war." is cited to an article by a Major General in the Indian Army which is written with a pro-India tone and as an authoritative statement in the article should be qualified or bolstered with additional cites. - Mifter
 * I this the futility of the conventional war with India is widely published in books and journals, it should be possible to bolster this with more refs. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A Non-Indian source: "Special report: Why the U.S. mistrusts Pakistan's spies" by Chris Allbritton, Mark Hosenball. (Reuters)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * DiplomatTesterMan Thanks a lot for your help in digging out this source. Yes, I think this citation from Reuters which is an international news agency independent of India and Pakistan is an excellent source to bolster this comment. I think adding this covered the concern pointed. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fundamentalists in Bangladesh
"Presently the Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, controlled by the ISI, have joined forces to carry out terrorist attacks on India." is cited to a book that describes the war as India's "triumphant victory" which had Pakistan "down on its knees" along with numerous other clearly pro-India remarks. - Mifter
 * Will search for more Non Indian sources stating the same. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A Non-India source: "Lashkar-e-Taiba:From 9/11 to Mumbai" by Stephen Tankel, ICSR, Department of War Studies, King’s College London.
 * And according to (HuJI) Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Wikipedia page, HuJI is Pakistani, "was the first Pakistani-based jihadist group".
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Another reasonably good source (Indian-American): The Menace That Is Lashkar-e-Taiba, Ashley J. Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * DiplomatTesterMan, thanks for your efforts, these are indeed very good sources that you found. I have added more from bangladesh Newspaper, quoted below. I think we have added enough independent sources to resolve this concern here.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2015 December 2015

Hoodbhoy
The Quote in the article. According to Pakistani commentator Pervez Hoodbhoy, "Pakistan's 'thousand cuts' policy is in shambles". India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground.

"India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground." needs additional citations in general, reads somewhat like an essay, and is presently cited to an article that reads like an op-ed in a section entitled "Views from Pakistan" with a subheadline that reads partly "two Pakistani commentators present the other side of the argument".-Mifter
 * Hoodbhoy is a highly regarded and widely quoted Pakistani commentator. I think these opinion of a Pakistani commentator is aptly attributed to him. Can we add more citations here ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources for THE LINE "Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy":
 * "The problem with Pakistan's foreign policy" by Tom Hussain, Aljazeera, 14 Feb 2016
 * "Pakistan rakes up Kashmir issue at UN, India calls it ‘lonely voice from wilderness’", Press Trust of India (PTI), Livemint, October 4, 2017
 * "Pakistan's Kashmir tactics fail to find traction with global powers" by Shyam Balasubramanian, The Economic Times, 20 Sept 2016
 * Various other sources - 4 5 6 DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FOR THE LINE: "This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries."
 * "Is Pakistan losing its long-standing allies?" Saad Hasan, TRT World, (Turkish), 6 March 2018
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * FOR THE LINE: "This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries."
 * "Is Pakistan losing its long-standing allies?" Saad Hasan, TRT World, (Turkish), 6 March 2018
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * DiplomatTesterMan, these are very good references, along with 6 which is from a Pakistani newspaper. I think these sources resolve this concern as well. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK Passed
DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 the DYK has been approved and will be on the main page on 29 Dec as per the schedule listed at Queue 6, The DYK progress would not have been possible without the efforts put in by you guys in improving the article. Cheers and high 5. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 just so that you guys know, Our DYK created a bit of History with 5,763 views and has been listed at Did_you_know/Statistics since it got more than 5K views. cheers-- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Maps and Images
DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, I was experimenting with maps and added one to the article, please share your opinion about the new additions. Some images may be helpful but not sure what kind of images can be added. Suggestions invited. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need any image with the lead. The title and the lead are graphic enough.
 * I think a map of India with all states marked with different colours would be an ideal map to go with the ideas of the page (though not in the lead). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ok, regarding the India political maps, these are the ones that I could find that fitted your description. I think 2nd is ideal, but it is not in English. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The second map is good for now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I am commenting a bit late, two images have already been added and they are good for now. For the future these are good examples:
 * This is a good example to see how images are used - Cold War.
 * Taking reference from how images are used in Cold War, images related to Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (already added), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Kargil War, Bangladesh War, 2001 Indian Parliament attack etc can be added.
 * What sort of images do other military doctrines articles under the "Category:Military doctrines" use?
 * Many of the pages under this category do not have images. Some do. Bandenbekämpfung has the image of a document. Many a relevant document can be added?
 * Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, DiplomatTesterMan we can possibly add File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (cropped).jpg along with Zia, but it will overflow the image to sections below, So I am not adding them without more discussion. Perhaps The space between Infobox and India map, can be utilized to Squeeze in ZAB pic. Another option can be to change the order of pics as infobox and then immediately (without any gap) India map, followed by ZAB pic, followed by Zia pic. But this is just my opinion, let me know what you guys think of. I feel the article as of now (without ZAB pic is also good enough), since this was a military doctrine and implemented by Pak Army represented by Zia, so Zia's pic is more relevant than ZAB. Kautilya3 as mentioned above is against adding too many pics and he does have a valid point. In any case, I will wait for both of you to comment on the number and order of pics on the article before changing the correct order. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, for now I think the infobox map, as well as the two images are perfect for now. No need for any more images as per too. My comments were just general comments. For usage later when the article is larger if need be. Just now the article is looking good. DYK tomorrow. Cheers. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DiplomatTesterMan, the feeling on pic is mutual. Yes, DYK in 5 hours, do keep an eye for reverting vandalism, since that is a side effect of getting article on main page. cheers. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

"With" or "through"?
Looking through the article, it appears that all but a couple of the sources use the phrase "bleed India through a thousand cuts (rather than "bleed India with"). Also, almost all the sources use lowercase for the phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed "through" is used much more often. I am waiting for the DYK to finish before I start fiddling with these things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Gatoclass yes, Scholarly sources have used With, Through and also By at times. All with same meaning. If we look at the prominent quotes of the phrase, we find the mention by Hoodboy and Rawat, both of whom have used with. see below.
 * Kirsten's book uses both "through" and "by" in the same book are 2 different locations.
 * Pervez Hoodbhoy, (noted, Pakistani commentator) in his article 'Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts' Policy Is in a Shambles has used the exact phrase with capitalization.
 * 'Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts' Policy Is in a Shambles
 * bleed India with a thousand cuts : Bipin Rawat Indian Army Chief
 * Plan designed to counter India's military and economic might by 'bleeding the country with a 1,000 cuts'

"'This (Jehadi) brand of terrorism is primarily sponsored by our neighbouring country in the west whose... policy is to conduct war against India by all other means and bleed us through a thousand cuts. This naturally includes the targeting of anything with a view to damaging, degrading or destroying the engines of economic growth and critical centres of power and strength of our country,' Secretary (Internal Security) in the Union Home Ministry U K Bansal"
 * Many sources used a shorter version of the phrase and simply refer it by "Thousand cuts" policy.
 * I do not have any personal favourites but I had used "with" and the capitalization for these reasons above, regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

POV article
This article suffers from a lot of POV issues. The issue can be seen in the first line of the article. The line is written as "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts is a military doctrine followed by Pakistan against India." However, none of the sources that follow are from the government of Pakistan. In fact, the source used explicitly use the wording 'a tactic described by several analysts as "bleed India through a thousand cuts"'. In other words this "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts" is the opinion of some analysts - as far as I know, official documents of the Pakistan government don't refer to it using those words.

The second POV problem is that many sources describe Pakistan's activites against India, but they don't even use the words "Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts", or refer to any such doctrine. It is the POV of users on wikipedia whether a certain Pakistani action falls under this alleged doctrine or not - this is not directly supported by the sources. Thus, that is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

I'm putting a POV tag on the article until these issues are resolved.VR talk  04:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Vice regent, Wikipedia policies requires us to use high quality sources to satisfy WP:V, there is no requirement to use official government published sources. In fact (even if it is available) Wikipedia policy discourages the use of government sources as it is a primary source and instead secondary sources should be used. Wikipedia policy No original_research states that "". The military doctrines that are part of top secret and confidential military strategy documents are not published for diplomatic reasons. Take an example of Cold Start (military doctrine), There is official government source stating that such a doctrine ever exists. In fact politicians and military officers have gone on record stating that no such policy exists, but the article exists (and without a POV tag) simply because there are reliable high quality sources that discuss the topic. If you are looking for Pakistani sources there are many, some of the good examples are below
 * Please read noted Pakistani columnist Pervez Hoodbhoy's article, that explains it clearly. "Pakistan's 'Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts' Policy Is in a Shambles"
 * Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's former ambassador to America, said: "Pakistan sees jihad as low-cost option to bleed India"
 * Adnan Qaiser (Bio here) a retired Pakistani Army officer and author who also confirms that "Pakistan practiced the policy of ‘bleeding India by a thousand cuts’"


 * Regarding your second point on WP:SYNTH you have made a general comment without giving any evidence or diff or link for the said accusation. You are absolutely wrong in your second observation. Each and every high quality scholarly sources currently in the article specifically refers to the "Bleed India policy". Your claim that there are sources outside that do not refer to this doctrine while talking about Pakistan's activities, hence your conclusion that the doctrine is a WP:SYNTH is actually considered WP:CHERRYPICKING.
 * If you have problem with the sources we can discuss, but tagging the article simply because you do not agree with the content is a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior.
 * The pov tag is completely inappropriate and I will be removing it soon. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that content which is not actually backed by source is clear misrepresentation of source. Your lack of focus to address that issue shows that POV tag is justified right now. 39.53.178.222 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Are those sources you listed reliable? If so, the sources you listed also say:
 * "Indian intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has been funding, training and arming Pakistan's MQM... MQM’s militant wing has been notorious for target-killings and other organized crime."
 * "India’s leaders bear much responsibility for Kashmir’s tragedy"
 * So for anyone to use these sources by WP:CHERRYPICKING is not good. In fact, there are two sides to every story and when it comes to Pakistani support for Kashmiri militants. Given this article's name it seems like it is only concerned with the Indian side. That makes it a WP:POVFORK. Thus proper places to cover this would be places like Kashmir conflict, Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism etc.VR talk  02:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * you are going off topic, and although I could respond to your offtopic comments I choose not to since this talk page is to improve the article and not a WP:FORUM for bickering on the India pak relationship. Unless you have specific issues, dont tag again. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Source synthesis
This comment has been moved from a user talk page, for discussion below. Thanks. There are significant quality issues with the article's content, some of which I will delve into later drawing on my editing experience. First and foremost is the lack of context, and recurrent levels of synthesis. As mentioned above, if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply conclusion C. The problem here is – aside from the synthesis – even some of the sources are not satisfying the threshold for reliability, given the nature of claims. I'm seeing some partisan sources quoted without WP:ATTRIBUTION (a requirement), which is rather problematic. There is also one publisher used as a source which is actually known for plagiarizing work.

Coming onto the content in question, the sentence on the "loss of Muslim support" and Saudi Arabia's "backing out" is a deliberate source misrepresentation, because the link it is cited to makes no mention of "Muslim" support, Saudi Arabia's issue, let alone Kashmir. It fails verification (and unfortunately was reinstated following 's revert). Even so, the link between Saudi Arabia, "Muslim support" etc. and the very specific subject in question ("bleed India") is not stated, hence the WP:SYNTH. On an off-note, the convincingly conclusive statement about "loss of Muslim support" (on Kashmir?) holds little ground, given how the Indian foreign ministry was exchanging squabbles with the OIC as recently as June (Firstpost).

I also note that the links you shared above are opinion pieces, which reinforces my earlier point regarding the referencing; please note that WP:NEWSORG states: Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact . Hope this helps,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)