Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Indians in Afghanistan

Background Information


This is a community discussion on several content issues about the article, "Indians in Afghanistan". 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.  Whenaxis  talk · &#32;contribs 23:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents

 * Option 2: Headings should be impartial to any POV. The WP:NPOV 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 has to be mentioned in the heading it can be stated in another NPOV form like "Intelligence activity and insurgency". -- lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: There are no proof of these alleged activities. Only Pakistan has made the mnad have yet to provide any actual proof. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 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 WP:NPOV policy. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See, the biased titles would be "Intelligence activities" and "False accusations of intelligence activities". "Alleged intelligence activities" is exactly the most neutral title possible. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "False accusations of intelligence activities" or "Supported intelligence activities" would actually both the biases from both sides, "Intelligence activities" alone does not specify whether it is an accusation or a fact, just a topic... that's what I meant. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "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."
 * As I see it, the "Intelligence activities" heading is only appropriate for undisputable intelligence activities, as it sounds as a statement of a known fact. The "Alleged intelligence activities" heading instead informs of the allegation but doesn't imply factual judgment. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 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. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: 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. --regentspark (comment) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 nations... eventually affecting the politics of region. This is notable enough for the inclusion. The neutrality of section heading is the dispute here. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Now, that I think about it, RegentsPark is absolutely right! The whole section belongs to the India-Afghanistan article. Not to this article. JCAla (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 India-Afghanistan relations and rename it as "Alleged intelligence activities". AshLin (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 an example, we don't go about including a section on Israeli Intelligence activities in the American Jews article just because a couple of Jewish Americans have been spies for Israel. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As lined out by AshLin, disagree with TopGun. JCAla (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 2 Neutral Enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now we are discussing if the section even has a place in this article. JCAla (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 1 because Wikipedia "should always play in the safe side" .---Agnostosgnostos 08:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Alleged intelligence activities . In fact the heading should should also clearly mention that the allegation is solely by Pakistan. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  21:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 neutral enough. --182.177.22.143 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — 182.177.22.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Attacks on Indians

 * Option 2 (and remove WP:COATRACK): Headings should not be implying a point of view, WP:TERRORIST 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 WP:NPOVN 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 WP:COATRACK at the moment. The article is about Indians in Afghanistan and that whole section is about terrorism accusations on Pakistan and its intelligence agency, ISI. After some mentions on attacks the content goes into accusing how ISI supports terrorists. Wikipedia should not and can not state such accusations as a fact (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 events of those attacks. Also, this content (in the current condition) belongs no where near the lede since it is spilling the WP:COATRACK 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Sources say that terrorists have attacked Indians working in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2, and remove all occurrences of "terrorist" (with exception of direct quotations): I would actually amend the WP:WEASEL with a word "terrorist". This word has no valid use pattern at all. It appears this is already done. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw the section on this, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch, where suggestions for the opposite are being made. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 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". Time Magazine 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. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2, definitely: Wikipedia 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 WP:TERRORIST which states that value-laden labels should be avoided - and that whenever they are used, in-text attribution is required (in this case, who calls them a terrorist?). A title with this value-laden label would not conform to WP:NPOV. Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: I agree that 'terrorist' is against MOS prescriptions. The text of the section can easily make it clear whether terrorists are involved or not. --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 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. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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) etc. That, I meant, was WP:COATRACK 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 mentions more of the allegations that the events of attacks. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. --regentspark (comment) 15:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 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. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, the two are different. These were terrorist attacks since they targeted civilians in one example Indian doctors residing in a guest house. JCAla (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 going against it. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between Terrorist, Criminal and Insurgent attacks right? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 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). JCAla (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 1: 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 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Terrorist attacks against Indians . Thats what all the reliable sources and official reports say.- -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  21:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 it is discussed above. Blames on Pakistan are POV pushing. This article is not for them. --182.177.22.143 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — 182.177.22.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * you clearly seemed to have missed the point this section is about attacks on Indians not on Pakistan. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When did he say it should be named as attacks on Pakistan? Paragraphs of that section are not about attacks on Indians rather WP:COATRACK - discussed in detail in the first comment and in explanation to . -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lede material

 * Option 1: Pakistan-India relations are a key factor to South Asian politics and stability. This accusation is quite significant and has been repeatedly 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 completely justify its weight. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2: Again, no proof of military forces from India being in country, Accusations do not belong in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lead tells another story. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 1, used with care: this POV is important for the topic, but it should be carefully presented as POV. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, 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". JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What I suggested above is exactly what WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 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 conducting anti-Pakistan intelligence activities to train Balochi insurgents in Afghanistan while India denies this claim demanding evidence" is just enough for the lede. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, no. By "we" I didn't mean the editors, it was a direct quote from Richard Holbrooke. 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. JCAla (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:WEIGHT. And then adding the allegation inline with denial of ten unrelated countries simply means including it to deny it. That is wrong and against WP:NPOV. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. JCAla (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 include all the details in the lead. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't need to name Holbrooke in the lead, but we should name Afghanistan's and the US' position for obvious reasons. JCAla (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you want to add them with full quotations does not have enough weight in the lede. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 2 changed, per AshLin below. JCAla (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1 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 reliable sources. It would be entirely WP:WEIGHT-worthy and within the working limits of WP:DUE to make a brief note of this in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 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 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. AshLin (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above argument should be noted to be based on a personal attack. All my arguments are based on actual reasons unlike yours. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Should be. IFF it is suitably cited. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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"?-- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 2 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. --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 2 As per AshLin and Darkness Shines. -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1 intro should have a bit of everything in article. --182.177.22.143 (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — 182.177.22.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Military content issue

 * Option 2: 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 WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 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 better idea will be to add this source to that text along side. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: I see no independent reliable sources claiming otherwise. The WP:V policy applies. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Same as Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. JCAla (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: 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. AshLin (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Unless there are some reliable references, it needs be mentioned that India has no military presence --sarvajna (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just verified the references for the sentence "India has no military presence in Afghanistan". They don't add up. WP:BURDEN is on the inclusion side here. That would be AshLin. First reference, an opinion (and I thought DS and AshLin were quite opposed to op-eds?). And should I be surprised, reference two is fake. . It does not mention what is claimed. Infact, it does mention this:
 * "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 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."
 * This is exactly opposite of the claim in the sentence. I'll advise above users to reconsider their !votes . 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 half 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 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first source is from a well respected journalist. He is widly quoted in academic books as an expert on the region The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda OUP p175 Afghanistan Greenhaven p222 War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists? ABC Clio p252. I think he is good for the statement that India has no troops in country. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, unattributed op-ed. And the fake reference raises a red flag. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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, For one, any Indian military presence in Afghanistan will only add to Pakistan's anti-India hysteria of a two-front threat. It is obvious to conclude from this that there are no troops in country, but that India is preparing for the possibility. India is now preparing to provide the Afghans military and police training. as you can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does state the opposite about the training and presence. And it concludes just the opposite of what you are saying. It would be WP:SYNTH 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * FYI, the statement I am defending has been added by JC_Ala and not by me, so BURDEN argument wont work here.
 * TG considers a Pakistani woman reminiscing in her personal capacity based on personal opinions as an acceptable op-ed whereas he proclaims as fake a serious piece written on topic as an official op-ed by a strategic affairs expert.
 * 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 a FAKE reference. I would request all third party editors to verify for themselves that:
 * The ref is from "Times Of India". India's largest-selling and most influential newspaper.
 * That the piece is an opinion-editorial under the specific column "opinion" and constitutes a genuine op-ed.
 * That Maroof Raza is a strategic affairs expert from India. See Google search on "Maroof Raza".
 * That his article clearly cautions India against a military presence in Afghanistan.
 * 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 region :

AshLin (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I always wanted it removed. And please keep your comments to the content. Verifying a reference that does not say what is claimed is not wikilawyering, that will not get any more credibility to your reply either. You should note that WP:BURDEN is on all those editors who want to include (or defend) something. You have endorsed JCAla's edits by reverting mine to them. So WP:BURDEN 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. 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. "The ref is from "Times Of India"", so what? I didn't say it was a non RS... I said it doesn't state 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 does not state (actually specifically avoids stating) any thing about India's military presence. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For everyone's information: I added the content with this reliable Time Magazine source which states: "India does not have troops in Afghanistan". Further sources are available such as "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." JCAla (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever your additions were, the debate was on sources currently placed there. They have major issues. Will comment on the new sources later. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Time Magazine source is still there. Just a sentence further down the road. JCAla (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have possibly known. Will verify that too. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Counter checked 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 1 I see no sources to support the statement that India HAS a presence. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is precisely on why there's no evidence for both to be stated as a fact. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * These fake sources were reverted into the article. This edit should be checked. It has been discussed in detail above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Option 1 India has no military presence in Afghanistan . Also agree with Ashlins comment above -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  21:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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? -- Ð ℬig XЯaɣ  13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For reference, the op-ed used can not be used without attribution especially without support of reliable sources per RSN . All the sources in the article do not support this as a fact. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Option 2 I read the discussion. The references are not saying this, these are opinions. This can not be said. --182.177.22.143 (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — 182.177.22.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I'm sure I'm missing something here. Why do we need to state a negative in the article? --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a conscious policy decision keeping in mind that nation's with far less at stake have a military presence in the nation. AshLin (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 (Indians_in_Afghanistan and Indians_in_Afghanistan) belong in Indo-Afghan relations.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. --regentspark (comment) 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. You should have seen the article before I began editing it! The history was virtually non-existant. AshLin (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm looking. This version, though minimal, is about Indians in Afghanistan. This version is where the politics of wikipedia editors starts creeping in. By this version, 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 this version], bolster the history section a bit, and all go back to editing other stuff. But, I'm not holding my breath. --regentspark (comment) 19:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if there is some traction for this idea, I propose going back to this version] and then proceeding with negotiated edits on the article. I.e., no material will be added without first seeking consensus on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 21:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. AshLin (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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, seemed pointy per se. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. The version that was up for deletion was this one. Many of the delete votes referred to the insurgency section as a WP:COATTRACK 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. --regentspark (comment) 17:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)