Talk:Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts

POV tag

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

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

Hi. @Mifter:, Users have made various changes to the page, added some more sources, as elaborated below and as seen in the main article too. Does the POV tag still need to be here? Regards, DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Below" mainly meant here: Talk:Bleed_India_with_a_Thousand_Cuts#Issues_pointed_in_Section_1, for easier navigation :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi DiplomatTesterMan, thanks for the note and link :), I'll take a look and reply shortly. Best, Mifter (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mifter will wait for you. Also wanted to add, as you can see and appreciate, DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 had done a lot of good work to improve this article. So we would like to get rid of the maintenance tags as well. thanks for your feedback. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:26, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi DiplomatTesterMan - I've removed the tags, thank you for your work improving the article and it sourcing. It is not perfect, but certainly improved to the point where I am happy to remove the tags. Best, Mifter (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Where do "thousand cuts" come from?

DBigXray It is possible that the "thousand cuts" phrasing might have been invented by Bhutto and Zia ul-Haq, but the ideas go back to the time of partition or even before. See:

• Behera, Navnita Chadha (2007), Demystifying Kashmir, Pearson Education India, pp. 87–88, ISBN 8131708462
• Subrahmanyam, K. (2005) [first published in Strategic Analysis, May 1990, pp.111-198], "Kashmir", in N. S. Sisodia; Sujit Dutta (eds.), India and the World: Selected Articles from IDSA Journals, Bibliophile South Asia, pp. 432–, ISBN 978-81-86019-50-4

Aparna Pande, cited in the lead, has an extensive discussion of how Pakistan's persistent goal has been to achieve "parity" with India, and such parity can be achieved only if India is cut down to size in some form. Muhammad Zubair, in a review of Christine Fair's Pakisan Army's Way of War, says:

Most scholars see the Kashmir dispute as central to explaining the Army’s behavior. They claim that Pakistan will cease its adventurism in India and Afghanistan through its militant proxies once the Kashmir dispute is resolved. However, Fair challenges the conventional wisdom and asserts that Pakistan’s Army is locked in an ideational and civilizational battle with India and therefore will persist indefinitely. According to Fair, it will do anything at any price to undermine India’s rise in the region by bleeding it with a thousand cuts. She also argues that the Army will suffer any number of military defeats in its efforts to do so, because the Army does not consider military defeats at the hands of India as defeats in the conventional sense of the word. Rather, defeat means acquiescing to India or at least failing to put up a challenge.

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

References

I am afraid I can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Bhutto. Balbir Punj op-ed is no good. In 2014, Punj was more a BJP politician than a journalist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Bhutto is not credited with the quote about thousand cuts, he is only mentioned for his quote of a thousand year with India. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I also can't find any reliable source attributing "thousand cuts" to Zia ul-Haq. The India Times article is really poor, and the Dogra book doesn't say very much. Jaffrelot confirms the strategy of "bleeding India" throughout the Zia regime, but it seems to have been mostly limited to Punjab and Kashmir. According to Kanwal the "thousand cuts" started a "decade ago", i.e., around 1990. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I notice that Sirrs the term "thousand cuts" in connection with Zia. But I think he is using it in a general way, with a term that he picked up from somewhere. He gives five citations there, none of which have the terms "bleeding India" or "thousand cuts". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Kautilya3, Katoch credits Zia in his paper. Please check the last couple of lines in page 2. This book by Kanwal in his preface and other places also talks about it.--DBigXrayᗙ 22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

And here is another that credits Zia --DBigXrayᗙ 22:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

DBigXray,

• I have already pointed out that Kanwal places the "thousand cuts" phrase to around 1990. That was after Zia.
• Atul Singh does not specify the source of his information. It could well be Indian military sources, and he might have thought it plausible. But that is not enough to attribute it to Zia by name.
• Katoch provides two sources: a book called Zia and After, which does not have any mention of "thousand cuts"; and an Asian Age article by S. K. Sinha which is titled "The Thousand Cuts". Sinha does attribute it to Zia, but we have no idea how he learnt this.

I can certainly see that the "thousand cuts" phrase got used after 1990. I have provided a quotation from Hamid Gul. But we don't have comparable information for Zia ul-Haq. Zia did start the Punjab insurgency and he trained Kashmiri militants through Jamaat-e-Islami. (I have reliable information about it.) But I can't see a paradigm of "thousand cuts" being voiced by him. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I understand your point. Since these reliable sources credit Zia for the phrase, we should mention this for now as it is. If in future, we find a conflicting source then we can possibly think of replacing or expanding that. Another interesting obsevation is that Zia ruled till 1988 which is not very far from 1990. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources, in my view. Katoch is the director of the institute publishing in its in-house journal. So essentially self-published. Atul Singh is also writing in his own organisation's web page. Kanwal's book is slightly better because it is made up of newspaper columns. So at least some editor might have looked through them. I personally found his writing to be responsible. I can't say that for the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there is enough evidence now that Bhutto had initiated the "thousand cuts" phraseology. The rest of the article needs to be adjusted to this fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3 yes, well done, this was an excellent find and adding it has basically filled in the missing pieces of puzzle. Glad that you were able to add it before the page goes live on main page. The DYK is planned to go live 5 hours from now. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Bhutto's involvement in this policy changes the character of the whole thing. It now becomes much more of a 'national' policy than a mere military tactic. The page has suddenly become much more interesting and substantial. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Please consider for insertion into article under "origins"

@Kautilya3:, @DBigXray: Currently on Wikipedia if you type Death by a thousand cuts, it redirects to Lingchi. There is also a disambiguation page for Death by a thousand cuts (disambiguation).
So under the section of "Origins" - Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts, something should be mentioned that the concept of a "thousand cuts" is much older. A small line or two.
Also, there is an article in the DAWN titled "Death by a thousand cuts" dated May 05, 2009 which says the following:

Brig (r) M. Yousuf, head of the Afghan Bureau in the ISI from 1983 to 1987, has thrown light in his book on the strategy adopted by the CIA and the ISI to defeat the Soviets. It was “death by a thousand cuts,” which he states is a time-honoured tactic adopted by guerilla forces against conventional armies.

So currently in the article the origin of the phrase just has to do with India and Pakistan. I think variations of the term should also be noted... What are your thoughts? Maybe including this can help reduce POV and bias that is being talked about in the template. Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: This answers your above question in a way related to where the phrase "thousand cuts" comes from. It is older than Pakistan. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan and @Kautilya3: Thanks a lot guys for your kind comments and edits here. Yes, indeed, from what I have read, the thound cuts phrase has chinese origins (a slow and cruel death). The references pointed by DTM are also something that I had came across while looking for it. I think it would be a good to start an Origin section to talk about the guerilla tactics and CIA-soviet battle references. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that "death by thousand cuts" is a widely used phrase in connection with the Afghan-Soviet War. There are tons of sources for it. I also know that, it was used earlier by Chairman Mao as his guerrilla warfare strategy against Nationalist China.

But the "bleeding India" terminology was apparently used by Pakistan much earlier than the Afghan war (from the 60s, in fact). After the Afghan war, they combined the two phrases. What they mean by it is still unclear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, @DBigXray: Ok. So we all know where "thousand cuts" comes from :D I am the one who is late here :D

So now we are looking for sources which connect it directly with Pakistan, and specifically "bleeding India" and before 1970, as outlined in above sections too. Ok, will keep looking.

Something funny I read just now about all this in an article titled "Only 960 years left for Bhutto’s war" in The Sunday Guardian:

In 1971, Bhutto tried to camouflage humiliation in Dhaka by promising a thousand years of war against India. Well, we still have 960 years left. No hurry, then, for a peace treaty. Implicit in the 1000-year threat is the recognition that Pakistan cannot win on the battlefield, since if you win war ceases.

Can this be included? If the thousand years war was declared by the Pak PM, and no one has "undeclared" it, then the war really does have over 900 years left :D (Of course, it's by MJ Akbar, if you know what I mean, which is besides the point.) Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

hi DiplomatTesterMan, The thousand year is already well referenced with Bhutto's site So we are covered there. The quote above is from Akbar in an opinion piece. Although this is an interesting observation, so thanks for sharing, but I dont think this quote or its assertions can go into the article. Some more third party journals or even Pakistani sources that talk about the "Bleed India by thousands" policy should be included.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Was more on the light side, but yes, shouldn't go in the main article. More Pakistani sources and third party...hmmmm . DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The "thousand year war" is off-topic and should be removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Thousand year war" should be removed from the article or this comment I put above should be removed from this page for being off topic? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, I think Kautilya3 is suggesting to remove 1000 years from the article. I do not have very strong opinions to keep it in article, but he did say that, and one of the sources CLAWs Journal, explains it in a way that suggests the evolution of the bleed India policy. for now lets focus on adding and expanding the article, and then we can take a look at what all things to remove as UNDUE. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though this is off-topic, I don't agree that the thousand year war phrase is "well-referenced". Bhutto did say it, but in a speech where he was accepting a cease-fire for the 1965 Kashmir War. A scholar might regard it as a face-saving slogan meant for domestic consumption. Bhutto did not meddle in Kashmir after 1965 till his death. He is often described as a "demagogue". So we can't take his utterances at face value. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Pakistani Prime Minister ZA Bhutto, who declared a thousand year war against India during his speech to the United Nations Security Council in 1976.".Kautilya3, Various inferences can be made out of it but he did say this on a very important international forum, and historians have mentioned this speech while discussion the Bleed India policy, so I see here strong reasons to keep this in article. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Issues pointed in Section DYK

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

Conventional war

"The war clarified that Kashmir could no longer be taken from India by a conventional war." is cited to an article by a Major General in the Indian Army which is written with a pro-India tone and as an authoritative statement in the article should be qualified or bolstered with additional cites. - Mifter

I this the futility of the conventional war with India is widely published in books and journals, it should be possible to bolster this with more refs. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

A Non-Indian source: "Special report: Why the U.S. mistrusts Pakistan's spies" by Chris Allbritton, Mark Hosenball. (Reuters)

The Pakistan Army’s humiliating surrender to India in Dhaka in 1971 led to the carving up of the country into two parts, one West Pakistan and the other Bangladesh. The defeat had two major effects: it convinced the Pakistan military that it could not beat its larger neighbor through conventional means alone, a realization that gave birth to its use of Islamist militant groups as proxies to try to bleed India; and it forced successive Pakistani governments to turn to Islam as a means of uniting the territory it had left.

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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

Fundamentalists in Bangladesh

"Presently the Islamic fundamentalists in Bangladesh and Pakistan, controlled by the ISI, have joined forces to carry out terrorist attacks on India." is cited to a book that describes the war as India's "triumphant victory" which had Pakistan "down on its knees" along with numerous other clearly pro-India remarks. - Mifter

Will search for more Non Indian sources stating the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• A Non-India source: "Lashkar-e-Taiba:From 9/11 to Mumbai" by Stephen Tankel, ICSR, Department of War Studies, King’s College London.

Despite the fact that LeT and HuJI do not work together in Pakistan, where their sectarian and ideological differences keep them apart, such collaboration is not unusual when operating in India.75 Further, HuJI’s Bangladesh operations (HuJI-B) provide another safe haven for training and preparation as well as a point of infiltration into India.

And according to (HuJI) Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Wikipedia page, HuJI is Pakistani, "was the first Pakistani-based jihadist group".

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Another reasonably good source (Indian-American): The Menace That Is Lashkar-e-Taiba, Ashley J. Tellis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Given the objective of bleeding India through a thousand cuts... [...] ... LeT received assistance from its sponsors—including from ISI field stations in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh—in the form of operational funding, specialized weapons, sophisticated communications equipment, combat training, safe havens for the leadership, shelter and operational bases for the cadres, intelligence on targets and threats, campaign guidance, infiltration assistance, and, in coordination with the Pakistan Army, fire support when crossing the border into India.

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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

January 2015

A Pakistani diplomat was withdrawn from Bangladesh on Saturday after intelligence dug out his involvement in terror financing and currency forgery racket...Mohammad Mazhar Khan, attaché at the consular section of Pakistan high commission in Dhaka, was also an agent of his country's secret service ISI, foreign ministry officials said...(Mazhar) used to channel the money earned through his currency scam to Hizb ut-Tahir, Ansarullah Bangla Team and Jamaat-e-Islami.

December 2015

Pakistan has withdrawn a female diplomat from its high commission in Dhaka following allegations of financing terrorist activities in Bangladesh...Farina Arshad, second secretary (political) at the Pakistan High Commission in Bangladesh, was withdrawn...Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) operative Idris Sheikh was arrested on November 29 in the capital and he made the confessional statement on December 6.

References

Hoodbhoy

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

"India was able to overcome its losses without weakening of its strength. The International community abhors Jihad. Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy. This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries. Every Jihadist attack reduces Pakistan's moral high ground." needs additional citations in general, reads somewhat like an essay, and is presently cited to an article that reads like an op-ed in a section entitled "Views from Pakistan" with a subheadline that reads partly "two Pakistani commentators present the other side of the argument".-Mifter

Hoodbhoy is a highly regarded and widely quoted Pakistani commentator. I think these opinion of a Pakistani commentator is aptly attributed to him. Can we add more citations here ? --DBigXrayᗙ 22:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources for THE LINE "Pakistan's continuation of its covert war, called Jihad in Kashmir has caused loss of international support for Pakistan's Kashmir policy":

• "The problem with Pakistan's foreign policy" by Tom Hussain, Aljazeera, 14 Feb 2016

Diplomatic pressure continues to build on Pakistan from the West and China to dismantle anti-India militant groups... [...] ... If one were to pinpoint the specific juncture at which Pakistan's foreign policy went awry, it would be the military decision in 1990 to ignore the recommendations of a task force that recommended that mujahidin returning from their successful war with the Soviets in Afghanistan be disarmed and prevented from transforming the Kashmir dispute into a violent jihad.

• "Pakistan rakes up Kashmir issue at UN, India calls it ‘lonely voice from wilderness’", Press Trust of India (PTI), Livemint, October 4, 2017

During the General Assembly debate last month which was addressed by leaders from more than 100 countries, not a single country supported Pakistan’s Kashmir policy. Unmindful of that, Lodhi reiterated her allegation with regard to non-implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir.

• "Pakistan's Kashmir tactics fail to find traction with global powers" by Shyam Balasubramanian, The Economic Times, 20 Sept 2016

Pakistan's third attempt to drag major world powers into the Kashmir issue seems to have borne little fruit...[...]...That Sharif's letter to the permanent five has won Pakistan almost no sympathy was apparent from the statements issued by Russia and France on the Uri terror attack, that either directly named Pakistan or Pakistan-based terrorist organizations...[...]... Pakistan's efforts to rope in nominal ally US too failed... Pakistan's 'all-weather friend' China too has had to take line of blanket opposition to terrorism.

Various other sources - 4 5 6 DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

FOR THE LINE: "This loss of support is evident even in the Muslim countries."

• "Is Pakistan losing its long-standing allies?" Saad Hasan, TRT World, (Turkish), 6 March 2018

At a recent meeting of an international terrorist financing watchdog, Islamabad lost support of close allies China and Saudi Arabia, exposing the country to the risk of economic fallout... [...]... At the center of controversy is Pakistan-based Hafiz Saeed. India considers Saeed as one of its main rivals for supporting an armed uprising in India-controlled Kashmir and accuses him of orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks, a charge he denies.

DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

References

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

DYK Passed

DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 the DYK has been approved and will be on the main page on 29 Dec as per the schedule listed at Queue 6, The DYK progress would not have been possible without the efforts put in by you guys in improving the article. Cheers and high 5. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3 just so that you guys know, Our DYK created a bit of History with 5,763 views and has been listed at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Statistics#December_2018 since it got more than 5K views. cheers--DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Maps and Images

DiplomatTesterMan and Kautilya3, I was experimenting with maps and added one to the article, please share your opinion about the new additions. Some images may be helpful but not sure what kind of images can be added. Suggestions invited. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need any image with the lead. The title and the lead are graphic enough.

I think a map of India with all states marked with different colours would be an ideal map to go with the ideas of the page (though not in the lead). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

ok, regarding the India political maps, these are the ones that I could find that fitted your description. I think 2nd is ideal, but it is not in English. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• 
  India - administrative map doesnt mentione Pakistan or Bangladesh
• 
  India administrative map, in some other language but does mention Pak and Bangladesh
• 
  India map en

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

Well I am commenting a bit late, two images have already been added and they are good for now. For the future these are good examples:

• This is a good example to see how images are used - Cold War.

Taking reference from how images are used in Cold War, images related to Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (already added), Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Kargil War, Bangladesh War, 2001 Indian Parliament attack etc can be added.

• What sort of images do other military doctrines articles under the "Category:Military doctrines" use?

Many of the pages under this category do not have images. Some do. Bandenbekämpfung has the image of a document. Many a relevant document can be added?

Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, DiplomatTesterMan we can possibly add File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (cropped).jpg along with Zia, but it will overflow the image to sections below, So I am not adding them without more discussion. Perhaps The space between Infobox and India map, can be utilized to Squeeze in ZAB pic. Another option can be to change the order of pics as infobox and then immediately (without any gap) India map, followed by ZAB pic, followed by Zia pic. But this is just my opinion, let me know what you guys think of. I feel the article as of now (without ZAB pic is also good enough), since this was a military doctrine and implemented by Pak Army represented by Zia, so Zia's pic is more relevant than ZAB. Kautilya3 as mentioned above is against adding too many pics and he does have a valid point. In any case, I will wait for both of you to comment on the number and order of pics on the article before changing the correct order. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Yes, for now I think the infobox map, as well as the two images are perfect for now. No need for any more images as per Kautilya3 too. My comments were just general comments. For usage later when the article is larger if need be. Just now the article is looking good. DYK tomorrow. Cheers. Regards. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, the feeling on pic is mutual. Yes, DYK in 5 hours, do keep an eye for reverting vandalism, since that is a side effect of getting article on main page. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

"With" or "through"?

Looking through the article, it appears that all but a couple of the sources use the phrase "bleed India through a thousand cuts (rather than "bleed India with"). Also, almost all the sources use lowercase for the phrase. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed "through" is used much more often. I am waiting for the DYK to finish before I start fiddling with these things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gatoclass yes, Scholarly sources have used With, Through and also By at times. All with same meaning. If we look at the prominent quotes of the phrase, we find the mention by Hoodboy and Rawat, both of whom have used with. see below.

• Kirsten's book uses both "through" and "by" in the same book are 2 different locations.
• Pervez Hoodbhoy, (noted, Pakistani commentator) in his article 'Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts' Policy Is in a Shambles has used the exact phrase with capitalization.
• 'Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts' Policy Is in a Shambles
• bleed India with a thousand cuts : Bipin Rawat Indian Army Chief
• Plan designed to counter India's military and economic might by 'bleeding the country with a 1,000 cuts'

"This (Jehadi) brand of terrorism is primarily sponsored by our neighbouring country in the west whose... policy is to conduct war against India by all other means and bleed us through a thousand cuts. This naturally includes the targeting of anything with a view to damaging, degrading or destroying the engines of economic growth and critical centres of power and strength of our country," Secretary (Internal Security) in the Union Home Ministry U K Bansal [1]

• Many sources used a shorter version of the phrase and simply refer it by "Thousand cuts" policy.

I do not have any personal favourites but I had used "with" and the capitalization for these reasons above, regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

POV article

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

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

I'm putting a POV tag on the article until these issues are resolved.VR _talk 04:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

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

References

• Regarding your second point on WP:SYNTH you have made a general comment without giving any evidence or diff or link for the said accusation. You are absolutely wrong in your second observation. Each and every high quality scholarly sources currently in the article specifically refers to the "Bleed India policy". Your claim that there are sources outside that do not refer to this doctrine while talking about Pakistan's activities, hence your conclusion that the doctrine is a WP:SYNTH is actually considered WP:CHERRYPICKING.
• If you have problem with the sources we can discuss, but tagging the article simply because you do not agree with the content is a kind of WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior.
• The pov tag is completely inappropriate and I will be removing it soon. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have to agree that content which is not actually backed by source is clear misrepresentation of source. Your lack of focus to address that issue shows that POV tag is justified right now. 39.53.178.222 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Are those sources you listed reliable? If so, the sources you listed also say:

• "Indian intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) has been funding, training and arming Pakistan's MQM... MQM’s militant wing has been notorious for target-killings and other organized crime."[2]
• "India’s leaders bear much responsibility for Kashmir’s tragedy"[3]

So for anyone to use these sources by WP:CHERRYPICKING is not good. In fact, there are two sides to every story and when it comes to Pakistani support for Kashmiri militants. Given this article's name it seems like it is only concerned with the Indian side. That makes it a WP:POVFORK. Thus proper places to cover this would be places like Kashmir conflict, Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism etc.VR _talk 02:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• you are going off topic, and although I could respond to your offtopic comments I choose not to since this talk page is to improve the article and not a WP:FORUM for bickering on the India pak relationship. Unless you have specific issues, dont tag again. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Source synthesis

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

Coming onto the content in question, the sentence on the "loss of Muslim support" and Saudi Arabia's "backing out" is a deliberate source misrepresentation, because the link it is cited to makes no mention of "Muslim" support, Saudi Arabia's issue, let alone Kashmir. It fails verification (and unfortunately was reinstated following Zakaria1978's revert). Even so, the link between Saudi Arabia, "Muslim support" etc. and the very specific subject in question ("bleed India") is not stated, hence the WP:SYNTH. On an off-note, the convincingly conclusive statement about "loss of Muslim support" (on Kashmir?) holds little ground, given how the Indian foreign ministry was exchanging squabbles with the OIC as recently as June (Firstpost).

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