Talk:2018 Sunjuwan attack

Page move

@Kautilya3: This page was not longstanding nor was the move controversial. I patrolled this page and moved it per WP:CONSISTENCY (similar to 2017 Amarnath Yatra attack, 2016 Uri attack etc.). Even the user DiplomatTesterMan, who created this title, sent me thanks for the move.  samee  ^talk 19:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S You had not edited this new article before and yet you were quick to move back the title. If you have objections, then you should request at WP:RM as the user who started this article did not object but endorsed.  samee  ^talk 19:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I may not have edited the article, but I know enough to know that it is a potentially controversial page move. Doing it without discussion certainly unwise. Move-warring over it is even more deplorable.

Google hits for Jammu attack and those for Sanjuwan attack. WP:COMMONNAME favours me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

A glance at this article's edit history would undoubtedly show that some editors are trying to own the article, especially by having a contentious title (Terror Attack) and then edit warring to keep NPOV words (like terrorists) in the article. Per WP:TERRORIST the article should not contain the word terror/terrorist atleast in its heading and lead. Just to cite an example, 2016 Uri attack (a link to current article was very diligently added to its 'See Also'), does not mention terror/terrorist neither in its main heading nor in the lead. Double standards? Above in view, I support @Samee:'s edits/move. —TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 11:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not talk about deplorables. Instead you should check hits for Sunjuwan attack instead of sanjuwan attack. What I can see is that sunjuwan attack has about 460,000 results (0.35 seconds) and jammu attack has about 61,000 results (0.23 seconds) [though they fluctuate]. You're just making a storm in a teacup, I repeat that it was routine new page patrolling and it was not controversial.  samee  ^talk 12:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Sunjuwan attack" is less frequent than "Jammu attack". You might have started as a routine patrol. But, having move-warred over it, you are not WP:INVOLVED. So please stop brow-beating me.

RegentsPark, can you confirm that this page is under Kashmir conflict edit restrictions? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not claim (and try) to be WP:INVOLVED and I did not browbeat you either. Again, your provided search results yield About 194,000 results (0.35 seconds) for Sunjuwan attack and About 61,000 results (0.35 seconds) for Jammu attack.  samee  ^talk 13:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• And @MBlaze Lightning: discuss here instead of exploiting and threatening users at their talk pages diff.  samee  ^talk 12:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You made a bold move and it was reverted. You ought to abide by WP:BRD since the onus was on you to get consensus for your move, but you continued move warring. Hence the warning. —MBL ^Talk 13:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

---------- I'm trying to add to this discussion in a more systematic way since more than one point is being raised. And as we all know here, when it comes to Kashmir, India and Pakistan, it can get messy unnecessarily. @Kautilya3:@Samee:@TripWire:

1. Regarding the usage of the word terrorist inside the article (not talking about the title here)

a) Jaish-e-Mohammad, on their wikipedia page, has been called a terrorist organization - "The group has been designated as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan, Australia, Canada, India, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Nations."

Hence usage of the words terrorist is justified by this rationale. Am I going wrong somewhere here, please discuss if otherwise?

b) According to the stated WP:TERRORIST - "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". Here we have to note that there are reliable sources to back the usage of the word terrorist (within the article). Please discuss.

2. The title.

a) I think the title change is ok if consistency has to be maintained, going by the name of previous articles of similar nature such as "2008 Mumbai attacks" "2016 Pathankot attack","2016 Uri attack".

b) Also, I see that redirects have also been created with the word Jammu and terror that leads here which also solves the issue of the search problem with the word Jammu.

c) Yes, a discussion before the change would have been much better, but now that it is happening afterwards I hope the points raised are constructive, since that is the Wikipedia:BRD (but not a vetted Wiki policy or guideline) @MBlaze Lightning:

Please discuss if I am going wrong here or overlooking something.

3. At places on Wikipedia, the word militant/militant organization and terrorist/terrorist organization are being used interchangeably, or inconsistency has not been maintained between articles stating the same group such as for Jaish-e-Mohammad. Is there is a better way to approach this on wikipedia or a better place to address this larger issue or if it has already been discussed how do I find the discussion? @Diannaa: @Sitush:

----------DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Responding to ping. It is a touchy subject, just like freedom fighter/terrorist. I think as a rule it is probably best to use the term most commonly found in the reliable sources that are cited. I think it almost impossible to guarantee consistency of description across all articles for any given organisation/person etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the input Sitush - DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a pretty contentious label to use that often depends on a source's POV. WP:LABEL gives some guidance. Note that the article on the group explicitly attributes the label, not saying it in Wikipedia's voice. Ravensfire (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. The consensus here is not mobe the title and that's more in line with WP:AT policy on contentious naming and application of WP:V and neutrality in determining such titles. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

---

2018 Sunjuwan attack]] → 2018 Jammu terror attack – Revert per Talk:2018 Sunjuwan attack#Page_move —MBL ^Talk 11:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This article was intially located at Jammu Terror Attack 2018. I came there as a new page patroller and moved the title (which was obviously against accepted MOS) to 2018 Sunjuwan attack and also added infobox. Some users do, I suspect, have vested interest as nobody would leave inflammatory messages about the final warning over a routine and "innocent" patrolling. The user who started the article did not object but favoured the move by thanking. More information is available on article's talk page. Therefore, I request that this request should now be discussed under WP:RM#CM.  samee  ^talk 12:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think there are now more than two possible page titles in considerations - "2018 Jammu attack", "2018 Jammu terror attack" and "2018 Sunjuwan attack" and by the logic of using the word terror in the title, "2018 Sunjuwan terror attack" also should feature in this discussion and the final decision. There are sources to claim both using "Jammu" and "Sunjuwan". DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the current title - In the last couple of days, the term "Sunjuwan attack" has become more widespread than "Jammu attack". So, I think there is no harm in keeping the current title. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep 2018 Sunjuwan attack as it used by most media as of today [1], [2], [3], [4].--DreamLinker (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dan Coats remark

@Ravensfire: The following quote of Dan Coats from the reference provided in the article makes it clear that he never mentions Sunjuwan attack or J&K nor was the hearing on India-Pakistan or J&K. So mentioning his remarks in the article is UNDUE, OR and NOTNEWS. I suggest removing it altogether. Whats your say?

“Militant groups supported by Islamabad will continue to take advantage of their safe haven in Pakistan to conduct attacks in India and Afghanistan, including against U.S. interests,” Mr. Coats said during the hearing on ‘Worldwide Threat Assessment’ of the U.S. intelligence community. - The Hindu

58.27.134.33 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You didn't read the source, did you? "Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats’ remarks came days after a group of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists struck the Sunjuwan Military Camp in Jammu, killing seven people, including six soldiers." It is tied by the article to this specific attack. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It's obvious why the Indian media would tie the attack with the hearing on ‘Worldwide Threat Assessment’ of the U.S. intelligence community. Please use a reference from a neutral source to tie the hearing with this particular attack. Until then the quote is taken off the article. 58.27.134.33 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid as the inline source is WP:HINDU, also his remark came 5 days after the attack. ——Echo1Charlie (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concern. Please bring a neutral source to back your claim or it stands removed. Just because "his remark came 5 days after the attack" means nothing to tie the two together. - 58.27.134.33 (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The community consensus, according to WP:THEHINDU (which is the link Echo1Charlie likely meant to use above), is that The Hindu is a reliable source. If a reliable source deems it appropriate to make the connection between the attack and Coats' remarks, then it's fair game to cite here. The piece that is cited is not an opinion piece. You have not backed up your assertion that the source is somehow unacceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

8 November 2021

58.27.134.33 Hai do you have any justification for removing this content [[5]] with a reliable citation (WP:HINDU)? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)