Talk:Indians in Afghanistan

Copyright vio
Please restore from Talk:Indians in Afghanistan/Temp. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Balochistan
Is pure coatrack and has no place in this article. TG please explain why you think it does, Darkness Shines (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 109.154.105.168 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Taiba & terror attacks
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 Pakistan and the blames instead of the topic. The largest section of the "Indians in Afghanistan" article on Pakistan is what WP:COATRACK is since it has been mentioned at the deletion debate. -- lTopGunl (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 Afghanistan-India relations.  If this article remains in its present state, I think I am going to change my vote into a delete soon. Mar4d (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See Alternatives to deletion, which is part of Wikipedia deletion policy. "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." et al. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. JCAla (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 topic 86.181.135.97 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. JCAla (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * JCAla, you've got to be joking if you think this article is more relevant than the previous version or that it isn't WP:COATRACK anymore . Not only is it even more WP:COATRACK now, but now it's also even more irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d, the article now contains factually accurate information on What is your problem? Does Foreign Policy 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? JCAla (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * History - to which AshLin has added good content.
 * Afghan perceptions about Indian presence - which is new, valid for exactly this article.
 * 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 Taiba).
 * Pakistani claims re Indian intelligence activity (and counter-claims) - which now has the counter-claim plus further elaboration by TopGun.


 * And in case you tried to imply anything by posting a link to what I wrote on NorthAmerica's talk, note that NorthAmerica's "vote" and statement on the AfD predate my writing on his talk 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. JCAla (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You know how articles are rescued? By fixing the current version. The only neutral comment we have here for a version is one from Magog on the initial version. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we have two uninvolved editors commenting on the AfD, stating that the current version is well-sourced and explaining notable issues. JCAla (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, any on-content remarks from you? JCAla (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 to edit war (see that it was my only revert and that I also removed my own additions). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is on "Indians in Afghanistan". Is it not accurate that To quote the neutral and uninvolved User:Dream Focus, "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." Has anything not been sourced reliably? What is your problem? JCAla (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indian nationals and targets were singled out for terrorist attacks?
 * That the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e Taiba have been accused of carrying out the attacks?


 * Search for "Indians in Afghanistan" at google.com and see what issues are being addressed. JCAla (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 consensus to put in Taliban 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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... this content should be removed until a consensus is achieved. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 01:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 Afghanistan-India relations or Afghanistan-Pakistan relations or the Lashkar-e-Taiba/Haqqani network articles. Mar4d (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even for that this information never got its better form. Purely one sided even if I see it from an outside point of view. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 03:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Disagree. 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. AshLin (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 I chose to remove and is self explanatory. The WP:BURDEN is on the inclusion side here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Also, why is there a picture of the Afghan parliament in the infobox? This a gross misuse and misrepresentation of the Infobox ethnic group 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. Mar4d (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * JC's addition made the article less about the diaspora and more about politics. This is not the right article for that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Closure: 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? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A "formal closure" for a normal section (that has been there for only nine days) of a talk page? No. JCAla (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, since I see no consensus here and it is done in such cases but you can surely take this further. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * Summary:
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) : "The article in its current state is well-sourced, and the topic itself appears notable."
 *  D r e a m Focus : "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."
 * User:Rvd4life restored the version with the additions. This clearly signals that he is in favor of the additions.
 * User:Darkness Shines also restored the version with the additions. This clearly signals that he, too, is in favor of the additions.
 * AshLin above has stated he disagrees with TopGun's proposal to remove all the additions.
 * 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 additions are well-sourced using only high regarded sources such as the New York Times, PBS, etc.

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 reasonably be assumed as outlined in the above summary. JCAla (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the summary 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 objections. Then we can either choose to take that to DRN or call an RFC which ever appropriate. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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 includes all issues addressed in the section. JCAla (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 suggested merely states 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 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 23:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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. JCAla (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "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 WP:COATRACK. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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 2) everything is reliably sourced (verified) and 3) only main themes are presented (what happpened? when did it happen? who was behind it?). JCAla (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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... 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? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess that is the step to be taken here. What are the issues to be discussed? What else? JCAla (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) "Alleged intelligence activities" or "Intelligence activities"
 * 2) "Terrorist attacks against Indians" or "Attacks on Indians"
 * 3) Mentioning of terrorist attacks against Indians in Afghanistan?
 * 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 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). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the objections I have on the content:
 * 1) "Attacks on Indians" section is mostly irrelevant and about blames on ISI which is WP:COATRACK.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.

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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


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

JCAla (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 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". Time Magazine i. e. covered the issue extensively and wrote among other things: "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."
 * 2) 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 lead.
 * 3) 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 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.


 * I've removed your claim of no military presence which is a disputed fact. Do not reinsert it. Your google search is WP:OR 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 WP:COATRACK and excluded the claims on their intelligence activities in Afghanistan. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored and sourced. Who disputes it as a fact? And were is your WP:RS for the claim? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:NPOV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Section break

 * Really? Were? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it was already sourced with the Time Magazine which wrote: "India does not have troops in Afghanistan". JCAla (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There it was. Not right after the sentence, but at the end of the paragraph. :) JCAla (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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'. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for insurgents and intelligence gathering are not "having troops in country" You are conflating the two. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Intel guys are not military, I do not think embassy guards can really count as a military presence. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's one citation for the disputed military presence. There are others present in the article. And RAW does amount to military presence. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That cite says RAW are training Baloch's It does not say there is a military presence in country, again you are using WP:OR to push you views. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Quoting:
 * "Are allegations of India placing troops in Afghanistan correct?
 * 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 strength of Indian troops has reached almost that of a company size force and even includes Black Cat Commandos."
 * -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you read the word troops 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 proof for this purpose.. stating any version as a fact is completely inconsistent to the section about intelligence activities and insurgent support, a blatant WP:POV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LMFAO, read it in the correct context of the quote, he is clearly alleging paramilitary forces, not Indian armed forces. Give it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever, let's use paramilitary troops instead of just "troops". Mar4d (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the quotation mentions both. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a statement that India has no 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Merged discussion fork sections. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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 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.

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 create a suspicion.

I have reverted his POV placement of tags.

AshLin (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:MPOV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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. AshLin (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 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. JCAla (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation states the opposite and is one of the citations present in the article. It is also time frame independent so I don't need to find a news from today. Infact the source is clearly stating that the number of troops are increasing. If you don't agree... there's a dispute. But it is strange that you don't even acknowledge that. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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 Pervez Musharraf. 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. JCAla (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you share the "more citations" please? JCAla (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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. JCAla (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did give you a citation for allegation precisely saying troops. And I'm not asking here to say India has military presence as a fact either, but to say the opposite is controversial as well and should not be stated as a fact. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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." JCAla (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Taken to WP:DRN (and moved to) Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan‎. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

According to Foreign Policy
Why on earth is this written this way? Is there some reason to doubt the polls? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Source removed
This source was deemed acceptable on the RSN board. It should be returned. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add to Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents section
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.

Not done: 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 WP:DATED. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indians in Afghanistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430194436/http://www.pak-times.com/2008/09/05/raw-creating-trouble-for-nato-in-afghanistan/ to http://www.pak-times.com/2008/09/05/raw-creating-trouble-for-nato-in-afghanistan/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)