Talk:2016 Pathankot attack

Sources

BBC story here. Reuters here. Sca (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for change .1 to .8637 for more accuracy in lead article on EnWP page.Stop.

—216.241.199.135 (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the correction you're recommending, as there isn't a plain ".1" anywhere in this article. Can you be more specific about the change you're requesting. Deor (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it's been about four days with no response to my query above, I'm closing this request for correction. 216.241.199.135, if you still think coordinates need to be corrected in the article, please post a new request at the bottom of this page, explaining more clearly what emendation is needed. Deor (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

End date of the attack needs to be change to January 5, 2016 Casualty list needs to include 1 civilian Ayonpradhan (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The inclusion of the 1 civilian is  Already done. Mz7 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Terrorism?

The article pretty clear outlines that the target was a branch of the Indian Military. If that's the case, how can this be terrorism?

Bluntly, it shouldn't be called terrorism. There is a policy against calling things/people terrorism without attribution. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Hollth (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Holy cliché. Freedom from tyranny, or the freedom to be tyrants? That is the question... Firebrace (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hollth: Yes,. there is policy named WP:TERRORIST and you should read that policy carefully. Policy says that such words should be best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. And this incident is widely described as "terrorist attack", and no one described it as "freedom movement" or something else. Wikipedia works on reliable sources and not on opinions. --Human3015^TALK  05:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It is an emotive label that can be avoided and as such should be avoided. It is we, not the press that have the onus to be NPOV. Attackers is descriptive and neutral, terrorists is not. It is widely described in the Indian media as terrorism, but I have yet to seen it called terrorism in BBC, Rueters, Al-Jazeera etc. You will notice in other articles there is a similar avoidance of non-attributed use of terrorism. E.g. ISIL has 'is designated a terrorist organisation by x,y,z' (i.e. attribution) and not 'ISIL are terrorists' Hollth (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean Indian sources are not reliable? Anyway BBC also used words like The congratulatory messages followed the gunning down of four terrorists. And there is every reliable Indian media used word "terrorist". NPOV does not stop us from calling a "terrorist" as "terrorist" when it is widely used. Even WP:TERRORIST says same. --Human3015^TALK  05:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times also used the same. "Terrorist attacks on security forces and military bases are unusual in Punjab, and more often seen in the border state of Jammu and Kashmir." So NYT also called it a terrorist attack. Now close this issue and lets focus elsewhere. Cheers. --Human3015^TALK  06:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that Indian sources are unreliable. Neutrality and reliability are slightly different concepts. Reliability pertains to facts being true, neutrality is a bit more nuanced. It's more about the presentation of facts and subjective aspects. Terrorism is not a fact, it is subjective. Yes, NPOV does prevent us from using terrorism without attribution as it is a highly emotive and subjective label and stated in the policy in wp:terrorist. As a comparison, I can find many reliable sources that say Christianity or Islam is a cult, but cult is not a neutral term, so it would be wrong to replace 'belief' with 'cult'. I am expressing a POV by using words with such negative connotations. Similarly, by using 'terrorist' instead of 'attackers' in every instance without attribution is an expression of POV. A subtle form of POV, but POV nevertheless.

Here's what I'm going to do. I'll re-introduce my changes first and then add that the group claiming responsibility is designated a terrorist group in India and that is is seen in Indian media as being a terrorist attack. That way both have attribution (per the policy), it is clear that it is considered terrorism and it is devoid of opinions. Hollth (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• DAWN writes "Firstly, the Pakistani government has done the right thing in quickly and unequivocally condemning the terror attack and offering its cooperation to India. ........ It is a welcome change that Pakistan now officially and directly condemns terrorist attacks..." (emphasis added). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
• Pakistan Telegraph writes "Pathankot air base attack: Four terrorists killed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a terrorist attack, pretty clearly. There's no opinion about that, other than perhaps an opinion on an appropriate definition, and I think you're all getting bogged down with this idea of 'right' with terrorist vs freedom fighter dynamic. This attack was carried out by a terrorist group, and the people involved may even have been terrorists. However, this particular attack involved armed people fighting against another armed group and thus cannot meaningfully be called terrorism. If it is called terrorism, then for consistency almost every military related act of violence must be terrorism. As it stands, terrorism has become a highly loaded word and is bandied around for political ends. The fact that a good deal of established media (but not all it is relevant to add) have used the word terrorist is reasonable; they are media based in states that have a dog in this fight. You are unlikely to find media produced by these armed groups, again biased with a dog in the fight, describing the attack as terrorism. People pretending they are being objective by pointing to media use of the word is absurd,the media reflects the bias of power structure it is based in, the structure that you're blind to because you are in it too.

I am uncomfortable with wikipedia, which is supposed to be neutral, using such loaded terms as terrorist casually. This is supposed to be a neutral repository of information; I can appreciate how instinctively the editors' own allegiances and non-NPOV can slip into an article, especially when that non-NPOV stance is approaching universal across the media we have access to and across the populations of the states we reside in, but just think what this will look like in thousands of years when the current powers and allegiances have given way to new ones? People will look back in history and ask why the glaring inconsistencies, the dominant power's history, was carried though. I read about historical battles with amusement sometimes, seeing how this encyclopedia is careful to note the biases of its sources. I have no doubt something in the future will have to do the same thing about the kind of stuff that is written here. In the meantime, men will continue to kill men, sometimes for reasons I can sympathise with and sometimes for reasons I can't.

I don't expect many, if any, of you to change your line of argument on this. That's natural. Indeed, you can probably make more rules fit to your view than the opposing side. But for the objective reporting of history, somebody has to point it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.247.220 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 7 January 2016

My view is that it is profoundly racist to suggest a terrorist attack on a military base in India is not terrorism. If political/religious extremists attacked a military base in the same manner as this in the North Atlantic would anyone be taken seriously suggesting it was not an act of terrorism? Especially if committed by an organisation recognised and designated as terrorist by dozens of countries? AusLondonder (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that would not be a terrorist attack as the target would be a military base. If it was attacking the public and civilians, like the 20008 Mumbai attacks, then it would be terrorism. I'd contend that racism actually fuels a lot of labelling of this is a terrorist attack, as this attack people are willing to declare terroristic merely on the basis of who was carrying it out. Your reference to 'political/religious' extremists is telling. With that label, you implicitly distinguish these people apart from those who have 'acceptable' political and religious views. You've then got a ready made distinction between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' and an easy way of applying the terrorist label; good guys do 'military actions' or whatever, bad guys do 'terrorism'. It's a useless label in that case because it depends on a subjective judgement call on whose cause is right.

Dharmadhyaksha Is it described as a terrorist attack in most of the Pakistani media too? Hollth (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2016

Please link the page Operation Dhangu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dhangu) to the word "operation" mentioned in the first para in description. Sandy samsonite (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done Did not link Operation Dhangu, but mentioned in the "Attack" section and instead redirected "Operation Dhangu" page here. The operation isn't notable independently and doesn't require separate page. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian English

I cleaned up the aftermath section a bit. Does that still conform to Indian English (I'm not familiar with the differences between Indian and other Commonwealth varieties)? Also, does the Indian English dialect have the same punctuation and grammar as British English? There are many places where a comma is missing in the aftermath section if it has the same rules Hollth (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Victims

Only the taxi driver and the security men are added as victims. However, the SP and jeweller were also attacked by the terrorists. Shouldn't they be listed as victims too? Lakhbir87 (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

War

If two countries are at war, and one attacks another, then why is it terrorism? Because they do not wear a geneva-approved uniform? Because they are registered armed forces? Because they are citizens turned fighters?

Because "two countries" are not at war. A bunch of bigots are angry that they live in a country where they're not the majority and are killing people in response.142.105.159.60 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

dodamath:(

On 2 January 2016, a heavily armed group attacked the Pathankot Air Force Station, part of the Western Air Command of the Indian Air Force. Six attackers and three security forces personnel were killed in the initial battle.[2][9] The gun battle and the subsequent combing operation lasted about 17 hours on 2 January.[10] The attackers, who were wearing Indian Army fatigues,[6] were suspected to belong to Jaish e Mohammad, an Islamist militant group designated a terrorist organisation by India, the US, the UK and the UN.[11][12] The attack was described as a terrorist incident in the Indian[2][6][13] and foreign media.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20]

A further three soldiers who were admitted to hospital with injuries died, raising the death toll to seven soldiers.[21] On 3 January, fresh gunshots were heard, and another security officer was killed by an IED explosion.[22][23] The operation continued on 4 January, and a fifth attacker was confirmed killed.[24] The United Jihad Council claimed responsibility for the attack on 4 January.[4]

The number of killed in the 'initial gun battle' keeps being changed, hence the rest of it falls out of sync. I'll have a look for more recent sources and try to keep the numbers consistent Hollth (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2016

please change..... Intelligence Bureau officials told TOI that the attackers called their handler "ustaad" while describing their positions inside Punjab after crossing over from Pakistan and Indians are so goofy to believe that who so ever says the word Ustad and Janab can only be from Pakistan and these words are forbidden for all others. .....To....Intelligence Bureau officials told TOI that the attackers called their handler "ustaad" while describing their positions inside Punjab..... because the line Indians are so goofy is not necessary here. 117.203.178.29 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 15:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

The lead of the article currently contains the sentence: "Media reports suggested that the attack was an attempt ... pieces of evidence were found linking the attackers to Pakistan, which is an attempt by Indian Army to frame Pakistan with their inside job."

The last part of the sentence ("which is an attempt by Indian Army to frame Pakistan with their inside job.") is clearly a trollish POV insertion, and warrants summary removal. 146.232.151.17 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Seems to have been the work of a single editor, have reverted all their edits to this page. Cannolis (talk) 06:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2016 Pathankot attack. 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/20160102090856/https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/sites/www.un.org.sc.suborg/files/1267.htm to https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/sites/www.un.org.sc.suborg/files/1267.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Anybody who has studied the relations between India and Pakistan knows perfectly well that Pakistan for many years has waged war against India through irregular forces, which can legitimately be called terrorists. This has become more prominent ever since Pakistan was roundly defeated by India in 5 or 6 regular wars ending in 1971. Pakistan has waged terrorism against India both in Kashmir and in India proper, such as the 2008 terror attack on Bombay. The note by Cannolis seems to blithely ignore this obvious fact. On the other hand India to has waged or funded irregular war against Pakistan as well, although on a far smaller scale, in Afghanistan and in Beluchistan. Banderswipe (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist attack?

Although the definition of terrorism varies among different countries, most authorities do not classify attacks on regular armed forces, such as this Indian air force base, as terrorist attacks. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the attack was perpetrated by a terrorist organisation, so perhaps it can be called "terrorist" in a broader, derived, sense. It is important to avoid using emotional words like "terrorism", "genocide", "fascist", "communist" etc. as mere insults. Their use should be restricted to their definitions in criminal codes and historical works. Banderswipe (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)