Jump to content

Talk:Jaish-e-Mohammed/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Arabic-alphabet transcription

Why give separate Urdu and Arabic spellings when they're exactly the same?

Anyway, it's really an Arabic-language phrase, with Persian style "Ezafet" in the Urdu pronounciation (not usually written in Persian spelling, and apparently not in Urdu spelling either). AnonMoos 01:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and no, not normally written in Urdu either (to this learner's frustration!). But in such cases as WP, I believe including the izafat to be appropriate. Transliteration wouldn't hurt either, i.e. Jaiš-ĕ Muḥammad. In any case, seeing as Arabic would have a slightly different transliteration scheme I will just write the izafat here for someone to copy if they wish: جيشِ محمد . Khirad 11:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP: Plagiarism

This article takes most of its information almost verbatim from the South Asia Terrorism Portal's [1] profile of JeM. After the introduction section, the rest of the body of the article seems to be almost a direct copy of SATP's profile, only substituting the word "militant" for "terrorist," and no citations are given.--RDavi404 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Since WP: Plagiarism is not official yet, WP: Copyright violations might be more applicable.--RDavi404 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/terrorist_outfits/jaish_e_mohammad_mujahideen_e_tanzeem.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists

An editor is removing the word terrorist from the description of this group. Even though the source explicitly states the same as the content Outman, James L (2002). Terrorism: Almanac. Gale Cengage. pp. 104. ISBN 978-0787665661. The group are called terrorists in hundreds of sources and are a designated terrorist group. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While you're correct that they are widely considered terrorists, the use of the term "terrorist" is excessive in this article and should be avoided (or at least tempered) per WP:TERRORIST to adhere more closely to WP:NPOV. Thanks,--RDavi404 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I shall trim it down a little. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Jaish-e-Mohammed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jaish-e-Mohammed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Fizzled out"

In this edit, Kautilya re-introduces the terms "fizzled out". The source simply doesn't use those terms or say anything like that. It simply quotes an unnamed official who says that he has no knowledge of what happened to the investigations. Lots of people in this world don't know everything there is to be.VR talk 00:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Please get into the habit of reading edit summaries, where the reasons for the revert are explained. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you please post the exact location where it says anything remotely close to "fizzled out".VR talk 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't reproduce text from sources. We summarise it. You have to read the whole source article and then discuss whether the summary is an accurate representation or not. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I glanced over it, and I believe it isn't. If you think there is something in the source that says that, the onus is on you to show that.VR talk 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I said in the edit summary the source gives ample of evidence of JeM being active, which means that the crackdown didn't get done; you can use some other words if you lik(e). Which part of this do you have a problem with?
I also recommend read WP:SYNTHNOT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The part where you say one thing on the talk page, but write another in the article. In the article you wrote that "the crackdown [on Jaish]... fizzled out". Here you say Jem is still active in Pakistan. It is possible for Pakistan to crack down on Jaish to the best of its abilities and for Jaish to remain active. For example, plenty of countries spend a huge tonne of resources to fight drug gangs, yet drugs are still actively sold on their streets. It doesn't mean the countries aren't doing their best to eradicate the problem.VR talk 05:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I also believe the allegation claiming the crackdown 'fizzled out' because of Raheel Sharif is problematic, because it's relying on a single unnamed source. Mar4d (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I accept the point. I will find other ways to phrase it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The source also doesn't say that Raheel Raza "interfered" as you claim. I'm removing that entire sentence and restoring with what was there before.VR talk 04:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I have previously recommended that you read WP:SYNTHNOT. It doesn't appear that you have. In the light of the essay, the question is not what the source "says", but what it implies. The article says:

Explaining the reason for Pakistan’s inaction, the official said that instructions from the prime minister were clear – to arrest or kill the members of JeM. Initially, Islamabad did just that; the Counterterrorism Department (CTD) raided several seminaries and houses across the country to arrest JeM members. Then, “In a highlevel security meeting, PM Sharif was pressured by [Chief of Army Staff] General Raheel Sharif to let the army handle the operations, instead of the CTD,” the official told The Diplomat.[1]

Interference is clearly implied. If you don't agree, you are welcome to take it to any forum you like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
General Rahil getting Nawaz to let the army handle the operations is not the same as "interfering". In any case, why is the opinion of an unnamed official that is not even about JeM (rather is about internal Pakistani politics) even important? See WP:DUE.VR talk 04:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
It looks like your problem is with "interfere". Reliable sources use it exactly in this sense:

The message: military-led intelligence agencies are not to interfere if law enforcement acts against militant groups that are banned or until now considered off-limits for civilian action.[2]

I have already said that you are welcome to take it to any forum and get an opinion. This is not a matter of "internal Pakistani politics". This is Pakistan's failure to meet its obligations to the world community, including the UN, and it is squarely about how JeM is dealt with. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
That is a generic statement and not referring to the Pathankot crackdown. Regarding what's actually relevant, it says:

Second, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has directed that fresh attempts be made to conclude the Pathankot investigation

I have no problem with you including Pathankot statement in the article. But what you copy and pasted isn't referring to Pathankot specifically, its making a general statement.VR talk 17:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is about. The term "interfere" which you objected to is not being used any more. Please make it clear what issue you are talking about, especially when you come back after a week and extend a thread. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Umer Ali, Pakistan: The Rebirth of Jihad, The Diplomat, 18 August 2016.
  2. ^ Cyril Almeida (6 October 2016), "Exclusive: Act against militants or face international isolation, civilians tell military", Dawn, retrieved 6 October 2016

Merge

I propose to.merge Khuddam ul-Islam into this article since both are about the same organisation. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 15:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

That is fine. Most of it is unsourced WP:OR anyway, which should be thrown out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

B. Raman's opinion

There's no reason by B. Raman's opinion should be mentioned so prominently in the lead. That is definitely a violation of WP:UNDUE.VR talk 20:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, that has been there for a long time. Have you looked at the sources? By what criterion do you decide "definitely a violation of WP:UNDUE? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Just because its been there for a long time doesn't make it ok. It's just one man's opinion, not a scholarly consensus. Why is that one man's opinion being given more wieght than everyone else?VR talk 04:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources don't say what they do

Kautilya reverted three edits of mine.

  • This edit: the source only says that it was backed in 1999. It doesn't say that is currently so.
  • This revert: the content that was deleted was sourced to a dead link.
  • Again, the RS only says there was backing in between 2000 and 2002, making no claims for afterwards.

VR talk 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  • For the first edit, there were three sources. Which do you mean by "the source"?
  • Deadlinks don't give one license to delete the material. There could be no links at all for that matter.
  • The source said JeM kept close ties with the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. No dates given. The book was published in 2015. If the close ties had stopped, we would expect it to say so. Did you find any such statement?
In any case, none of these are reason enough for you to delete the material, or to move it out of the lead. Even if the ties were time-limited, they would still belong in the lead. The best you can do is to tag it with {{citation needed}} or {{clarification needed}} or some such. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Jaffrelot. It says "In 1999, little doubt remained as to the cooperation between the military (especially ISI) and jihadists in Pakistan." The second source (Moj) doesn't talk about ISI. Fair also mentioned ISI-Jaish links dating to around the 1990s.
  • Anyone can make up sources. If a link can't be found to something that's supposed to be on the internet (like a website), then it can't be verified.
  • "kept" is a past tense verb, not present. It refers to what the Jaish did, not what they do. The paragraph is talking about events from the 1990s and early 2000s. In fact, just a few sentences later, the author says "The group also publishes the Urdu Daily Islam..." - that sentence would imply that JeM still publishes (at least as of 2015) that.VR talk 00:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I've moved the Jafferlot bit to the history, since she says "In 1999...". VR talk 05:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Given by lack of response to the above, I guess there were no objections.
I noticed the addition of this source. Unlike the ones above, this one does accuse Pakistan of supporting Jaish. However, Pakistan denies that. So its a violation of WP:NPOV to discuss one perspective and not the other. I've moving this to the body and discussing this in an NPOV manner.VR talk 02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing of the kind. Bruce Riedel is a reliable source. "Pakistan," whatever it means, is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and tell me where it says that "Pakistan" is a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I have copied and pasted statements by other sources to show they're dated (usually to around 1999). The onus is on you to show that the sources are making the claims in the present tense. Pakistan's views were reported by a reliable source. The Dawn, a major Pakistani newspaper, is a reliable source. It is a violation of NPOV for you to remove the statement "However, Pakistan has denied that its aiding Jaish".VR talk 20:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think I have addressed the "dated" business below. Once again, an encyclopedia describes everything, past as well as the present.
I don't mind adding a denial from Pakistan, but it has to be properly sourced. Who denied? when? what exactly did they deny? I am glad you accept Dawn to be a reliable source. I hope you will continue to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You are simply distorting the facts here. Dawn is a reliable source for saying that "Pakistan has denied helping Jaish". Dawn is not a reliable source for saying that "Pakistan has not helped Jaish". The reason? The former statement is not controversial. Everyone, including India, agrees that Pakistan has verbally denied assisting Jaish in the Pathankot attack. The latter statement is certainly controversial. Similarly, what you added is controversial and belongs at the lead at Cyril Almeida, not this article (although we can mention it in the body).VR talk 04:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead deletions

In two edits [2], [3], Vice regent deleted significant sourced chunks of text from the lead. I am reproducing them below so we can discuss them:

It also maintained close relations with Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Moj, Deoband Madrassah Movement 2015, p. 98: "In addition to guerilla activities in Kashmir, JeM kept close ties with the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan."
  2. ^ Popovic, The Perils of Weak Organization 2015, pp. 921, 925, 926.
  3. ^ Riedel, Deadly Embrace 2012, p. 69: "The answer is JeM's friend and ally, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda."
  4. ^ Bill Roggio (16 January 2016). "Pakistan again puts Jaish-e-Mohammed leader under 'protective custody'". The Long War Journal.: "In 2008, JEM recruitment posters in Pakistan contained a call from Azhar for volunteers to join the fight in Afghanistan against Western forces," according to the US Treasury’s 2010 designation of the group’s emir.

Scholars state that JeM was created with the support of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI),[1][2][3] which uses it to fight in Kashmir and other places, and continues to provide it backing.[4][5]

References

  1. ^ Moj, Deoband Madrassah Movement 2015, p. 98: "Deobandis like Masood Azhar, a graduate of Jamia Binouria who later set up a jihadist outfit named Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) in 2000, reportedly at the behest of Pakistan's military establishment."
  2. ^ Rashid, Descent into Chaos 2012, Glossary: Jaish-e-Mohammed— ... militant group... formed in 2000 by the ISI and Maulana Masud Azhar in the aftermath of the hijacking of an Air India plane to Kandahar.
  3. ^ Riedel, Deadly Embrace 2012, p. 69: "the ISI-supported, if not created, Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) terror organization."
  4. ^ C. Christine Fair, Bringing back the Dead: Why Pakistan Used the Jaishe-Mohammad to Attack an Indian Airbase, Huffington Post, 12 January 2016. "This interpretation of the attack as "peace spoiler" misses the strategic element of the ISI's revival of Jaish-e-Mohammad..."
  5. ^ Bruce Riedel (5 January 2016). "Blame Pakistani Spy Service for Attack on Indian Air Force Base". The Daily Beast.: "His group is technically illegal in Pakistan but enjoys the continuing patronage of the ISI."

Both the statements are supported by extensive scholarly citations and quotations from them. And the article body provides more detail. I don't see how they can be simply deleted. So I invite him to explain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Simply put, the sources are there, but they don't actually say what you claim they are saying.
The discussion for the first is at Talk:Jaish-e-Mohammed#Al-Qaeda_claim. I believe that all the sources relating to this claim actually talk of ties in late 1990s and early 2000s. If you don't mention the date, that is very misleading.
The discussion for the second is at Talk:Jaish-e-Mohammed#Sources_don.27t_say_what_they_do. Most sources point to only historical ties between Pakistani institutions (ISI, Pakistan army etc), again dating to late 1990s (or around that time period). Some sources don't, and I included those in the lead.
But, again, I'll be conducting detailed discussion in the section I mentioned. There's no point in duplicating responses.VR talk 04:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I started a new section in order to make the discussion more structured. Let us just discuss it instead of getting caught up with how it should be discussed.
  • Regarding Taliban and Al Qaeda, I would mention the dates if I could find a source that says the connections with Taliban were cut off after a point. In reference 4, the US Treasury is saying that JeM was sending fighters to Afghanistan in 2008, when the Taliban and Al Qaeda were fighting the US. So we don't have a precise date when the connections ended or whether they ended. As a compromise, I can add something like "especially in the initial years".
  • Regarding ISI, "most sources" talk about the past. Yes, they are books or journal articles that necessarily talk about the past. The current affairs are published in newspapers or magazines. Fair and Riedel, established experts who have written books, are saying that the connections continue till present. I don't see how you can ignore them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
These are two separate issues and should be discusses separately. I don't want to mix ISI discussion with Al-Qaeda discussion. We already have two sections where the discussions were ongoing.VR talk 16:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda claim

Kautilya keeps inserting that JeM currently maintains ties with Al-Qaeda. I'd like to see reliable sources say that. So far all the sources make allegations of Al-Qaeda ties dating back to early 2000s at the latest. Currently two sources are used, both date the ties to the early 2000s.

  • Popovic, Milos, page 921 says JeM "relied" on its connection with al-qaeda and uses a source dating to 2004.
  • Popovic, Milos, page 921 says JeM "had" ties with Al-qaeda and uses a source dating to 2002.
  • Popovic, Milos, page 921 says JeM "established" ties with Al-qaeda and refers to source called "Frontline Pakistan". That source, if you read the whole paragraph, is referring to these ties during the Taliban regime, which fell in 2001.
  • Moj, page 98, is also referring to pre-9/11 ties between Jaish and Al-Qaeda and Taliban.

In the absence of any reliable sources indicating there are current ties, it is inappropriate to use the present term in describing Jaish's ties with Al-Qaeda and Taliban.VR talk 05:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I will research more into whether the links with Al-Qaeda continue. However, the lead still needs to mention them if they were links in the past. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If its something in the past, then it would be WP:UNDUE to mention it, unless you can find sources that say there are current ties. Historical stuff belongs in the history section.VR talk 17:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is something in the past UNDUE? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't have much to do with what Jaish is today and most sources talk about Jaish in the context of the Kashmir conflit, not the war in Afghanistan. Jaish's former links to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not why its notable.VR talk 20:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
How is it ambiguous? (Is it possible for you to discuss and reach agreement before fiddling with the article?) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
It is ambiguous because it doesn't specify the time frame. And you edit the article all the time without explaining yourself on the talk page.VR talk 20:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I am editing my own content. If I ever had an objection to your content, I would definitely discuss it. Anyway, this is not about me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And Reidel doesn't say that JeM is currently linked to Al-Qaeda. The full context is: "Who benefited from the attack? The answer is JeM's friend and ally, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda." He is talking about the 2001 attack, not any recent attacks. The book si available on Google Books for all to read.VR talk 20:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Did my text say anywhere that JeM is currently linked to Al-Qaeda? So, why are we talking about it?
Look you seem to have this idea that we are writing a newspaper, describing what happened yesterday. We are not. This is an encyclopaedia article. When we talk about a subject, we talk about it in its entirety, even the stuff that happened a millennium ago. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
You need to mention the date of the Al-Qaeda ties, otherwise its very misleading. How about a compromise: we can mention the Al-Qaeda ties in the lead only if we mention them and the date these ties are reported in the reliable sources to have existed. That way we are not misleading the reader.VR talk 04:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
And if you believe there are still current Al-Qaeda ties, please show me the source (and quote it fully below, cause I didn't see that in the sources you posted).VR talk 16:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
What I "believe" is of no consequence. We should be discussing the content. And, the content uses the past tense, not the present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I have now found a 2010 source that attests to these relations.[1] In the light of this, I propose to change the past tense to the present tense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, the source (which is Malik, not NYT), says JeM is "allies" with Al-Qaeda. That is very different from having ties to it. Allies can mean the two are fighting the same enemies, for example. I don't mind if you include it and correctly attribute it. This statement was made by Malik, who is a notable source, but not a scholarly one. (NYT is reliable source, but it clearly attributes it to Malik).VR talk 05:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
"Maintained close relations" (in the past tense) is what the deleted text said. "Continues to be allied" is what I am adding.
Rehman is speaking in his official capacity as the Interior Minister. This is not a private opinion. The NYT as well as scholars have clearly accepted his "admission". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly the source is from 2010. It is 2016 now, almost 2017. That is not present tense. In any case that is only Mr Rehman Malik's opinion. It must be attributed as such, you can't say it as fact.
Finally the article says "It also maintained close relations with Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and continues to be allied to them." The above discusses the "allied" part of this statement. But the part of this statement of "maintained close relations" must be dated to 2002, as you have not provided any sources that find more recent evidence of having "close relations".VR talk 05:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jane Perlez (2 June 2010), "Official Admits Militancy's Deep Roots in Pakistan", The New York Times, retrieved 22 October 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jaish-e-Mohammed. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaish-e-Mohammed. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2019

I am requesting to remove Pakistan-based words from the lead section. Its added two days back in retaliation of 2019 Pulwama attack, i dont want go to deep but there is not a single source which proves its a Pakistani based organization and link which is cited is wikipidea mirror of same page. also please see earlier version of this page before 2019 Pulwama attack https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaish-e-Mohammed&oldid=880213844 Mahodev200 (talk) 12:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The source added as a reference for the said text also has the quote that verifies the same. DBigXrayᗙ 12:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

LeT in 2001 attacks

  • The CRS report mentions the Indian Government of accusing both the organisations in the attacks in both the entries. It does not mention it in it's own voice.
  • Notably, while LeT has rebuffed any involvement; JeM has conceded to playing a role.
  • At any case; these denials don't mean much........
  • Christine Fair writes:-The Lashkar-e-Taiba was responsible for most of these incidents, with the exception of the 2001 Parliament attack, which was carried out by Jaish-e-Mohhammed[1]
  • Fair ain't devoid of controversies or her own biases (drones et al) but this is not an area that ought to be affected by that.

At any case; I am not much knowledgeable about this part. area. ∯WBGconverse 19:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed and added Riedel. I am trying to dig in some more. I admit that the sources are not clear-cut. The Indian government accused both of them, but the Pakistani sources put the blame on JeM alone. There were some obvious motivations for Pakistan to limit the damage. But, even if both of them participated, I think JeM was in the lead role. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
This article by Praveen Swami[2] is worth reading. I will try to incorporate it into the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fair, C. Christine (2014-04-25). Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199892716.
  2. ^ Praveen Swami, How significant is Jaish-e-Muhammad in Kashmir today?, The Indian Express, 10 November 2017.

Notice that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions

As the article has seen heavy editing since the recent incident and some editors are starting to communicate with reverts, this page is now subject to WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Anyone editing this article must not make more than one revert per 24 hours. Users who violate this restriction may be blocked as arbitration enforcement. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Source to expand the article

Removal of content

EJwalter has been edit-warring to remove large parts of the article, saying that through "direct personal observation" they saw a different truth than was published. Text that was removed by EJwalter includes details from Muhammad Moj's book The Deoband Madrassah Movement: Countercultural Trends and Tendencies, news items from Dawn.com, news items from the BBC, news items from Al-Jazeera, and a piece by Professor C. Christine Fair in Huffington Post. These are reliable sources and should not be summarily removed.

The reason given for removal is a violation of the hard Wikipedia policy WP:No original research. Even if material is being added rather than removed, the policy tells us to summarize already-published sources when editing the encyclopedia, not rely on personal observation. This policy is not negotiable. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Who is the Terrorist outfit?

The purpose of a wiki encyclopedia is to provide objective information and not to propagate any propaganda. The repeated use of the word "terrorist" or "terrorist outfit" is not only unqualified, but also incorrect. Jaish e Mohammed (to my knowledge) is strictly an Islamic militant group that ideologically grounds itself in the principles of Islamic Jihad. The purpose of this group is to primarily work towards the independence of Kashmir through military activity, and secondarily support other Muslim independence movements or the movements for the establishment of Islamic rule around the world. If its terrorist for some, its a freedom fighter for others. I don't see the expression "freedom fighter" repeated as many times as the expression "terrorist" in this article.

There is no mention of the undemocratic occupation of Kashmir by India, that has conducted numerous attrocities in that region for the last 60 years. Whereas Jaish e Mohammed engages Indian military elements, the Indian army has terrorized and harrassed Kashmiri civilians and militants alike. By any measure, the Indian government is a bigger terrorist than Jaish e Mohammed.

hmmm Then we should consider most nations including US & others to be terrorist nations. Just like you think numerous attoricites have happened, i can give you big list of what & why such things have happened and who is actually behind it, This argument will never end. so backoff. If you want to consider India as terrorist nation, then do so. everybody knows how many people this Jaish e Mohammed organisation has killed.

Please refrain from furling propaganda on talk page of Wikipedia. And organisations is only labelled as terrorist outfit when the organisation is recognised by a number of Governments as terrorist organisations. Also refrain from making derogatory accusations towards any country or sympathizing with terrorists Organisations. Kunal Mystry (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for unexplained sources

Hello, Afghanistan was listed as a 'state ally'. I hovered over the source, without clicking the link I read the text. The text did not justify anything and only talked about how Jaish e Mohammad is controlled by the Military Establishment in Pakistan. Please actually outline the evidence otherwise it has to be removed. PreserveOurHistory (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jaish-e-Mohammed/Archive_1&oldid=1154525762"