Jump to content

Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Darkness Shines (talk | contribs)
31,762 edits
This rfc just started do not close
Undid revision 479267629 by Darkness Shines (talk) No consensus in previous RfC.
Line 192: Line 192:
== Request for Comment II ==
== Request for Comment II ==


{{discussion top|1=The above section highlights the consensus that there is an opposition to this being implemented at this time. -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue"> (ʞlɐʇ) ]]</font></font> 07:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)}}
{{rfc|pol|hist|rfcid=E65FC3D}}
Should the article have separate sections for the following.
Should the article have separate sections for the following.


Line 206: Line 206:
===Discussion===
===Discussion===
*'''Oppose all''': Those are [[WP:POINT]] details of the same RFC started again after not getting a consensus above in the RFC above. And we have a separate article on human rights in Pakistan. This article is about the agency. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
*'''Oppose all''': Those are [[WP:POINT]] details of the same RFC started again after not getting a consensus above in the RFC above. And we have a separate article on human rights in Pakistan. This article is about the agency. --<span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:TopGun|<b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>]] ([[User talk:TopGun|<b style="color:#000">talk</b>]])</span> 14:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

{{discussion bottom}}

Revision as of 13:11, 28 February 2012


...

Support for terrorism

This section which is sourced to academic books was reverted out on the grounds that the information is already present, were exactly in this article is the section for the support of all the terrorist groups in the section I added? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way everything is narrated in this section (Support for domestic terrorists) makes me think that the authors did present some concrete evidence of whatever said not just accused ISI of these wrongdoings. --SMS Talk 15:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary you say it needs rewriting. Might I ask why you think this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This section is a duplication of the Mumbai attacks section already mentioned in "India" section in "reception". Obvious POV. Also note the discussion above where I have explained this to the same user at length. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not, there is mention of several terrorist groups in the new section, not just the Mumbai attacks. It would be better to move the Mumbai section to the new section IMO. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think there should be a little more detail added about this support of domestic terrorists to make it clear whether these accusations do have some background (like they were made after some investigations/probe) or just the rumors that usually are spread against ISI. --SMS Talk 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, as the sources used are of a high quality (academic press) which usually have excellent fact checking I would imagine I got it right. If you are unable to view the sources used do not hesitate to ask and I will provide full quotations for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is due to your duplication here and editwarring else where that you just got reported at AN3. Don't try to be neutral here since your content has duplicates and you've Wikipedia:TAGBOMBed the article for your similar reasons. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Mumbai attacks there is no mention that I can see of the other terrorist groups supported by the ISI. I have merged the sections now so your complaints are hopefully resolved. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've merged the section under a POV title. The correct title will be of accuser as being previously followed. If they are accused (which is mostly the case) by Indian government, that heading should be used. If you have claims from another party that should get, if it is notable at all, its own sub-heading under reception. You've removed content which was not being displayed in the article but was there to be restored on addition of citation. You've also removed cited content along with that. The sections you merged also now do not attribute the claims to the parties which was previously decided and acknowledged by you: "Had not noticed it, however what I have written is superior and all it needs now is the Pakistani denial, the old section can then be removed." It was decided to attribute the claims and keep content under that heading in the "Mumbai Attacks" section above. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a POV title, it is what the sources say. Nothing was "decided" about the Mumbai attacks, in fact I suggested merging that into the new section. I removed uncited content, I got fed up of scrolling past it when editing. My edits adhere to WP:V & WP:NPOV, it is also concise and the prose is better, take your complaints else were, we can do naught on this article for two weeks due to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can not make edits to the article after you are reverted. It is protected because you still did that. So that would just mean, you can not editwar on this article (since then I'd disagree and revert) thanks to me. The article can still be edited (and this was the proper way anyway) after gaining consensus and placing an "editprotected" request... so that is not a problem. You've also removed some of the cited content along with your removals. Prose is one thing, changing content to suit your POV does not clearly adhere to NPOV since claims need to be attributed. You're advised to read that section again in that case. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can make edits to an article after being reverted, there is no rule which says I may not. I removed badly written duplicate prose, get over it. Statements of fact do not need attribution. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EDITWAR then. And you need to stop commenting on me in the edit summaries or other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the last edit to the Taliban article, that is adding new content, not edit warring. Hence, yes, I can still edit an article after being reverted. Take care and toddle pip. Darkness Shines (talk)

You don't understand the policy then. It is editwarring no matter what content you add after being reverted... whether it is a tag or some thing new. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you better go report me then, ta ta for now. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to exclude such material at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for domestic terrorists

Trying another approach Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.<ref name=Wilson1>{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=John|title=Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism|year=2005|publisher=Pearson|isbn=978-8129709981|pages=80}}</ref> The ISI have close ties to [[Lashkar-e-Taiba]] who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.<ref name=Green>{{cite book|last=Green|first=M. Christian|title=Religion and Human Rights|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Chapter 21|isbn=978-0-19-973345-3}}</ref> Pakistan denies all such claims.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/diplomat-denies-pakistan-role-in-mumbai-attacks-1521700.html | location=London | work=The Independent}}</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/pakistan-denies-governmen_n_147395.html</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/07/world/fg-pakistan-india7 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Laura | last=King | title=Pakistan denies official involvement in Mumbai attacks | date=2009-01-07}}</ref> The ISI have also given aid to [[Hizbul Mujahideen]].<ref name=Sisk>{{cite book|last=Sisk|first=Timothy D.|title=International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets|year=2008|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415477055|pages=172}}</ref> The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.<ref name=Martin>{{cite book|last=Martin|first=Gus|title=Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues|year=2009|publisher=Sage|isbn=978-1412970594|pages=189}}</ref><ref name=Palmer>{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=Monte|title=At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism|year=2007|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0742536036|pages=196}}</ref> Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.<ref name=Martin>{{cite book|last=Martin|first=Gus|title=Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues|year=2009|publisher=Sage|isbn=978-1412970594|pages=189}}</ref>The ISI also helped with the founding of the group [[Jaish-e-Mohammed]].<ref name=Wilson2>{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=John|title=Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism|year=2005|publisher=Pearson|isbn=978-8129709981|pages=84}}</ref> The ISI also founded [[Al-Badr (India)|Al-Badr Mujahideen]] who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.<ref name="Schmid (Editor)">{{cite book|last=Schmid|first=Alex|title=The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research|year=2011|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-41157-8|pages=540}}</ref> Which version should be retained in the article? (number 1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=471830324 This] all of which is sourced to the academic press, or (number 2) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=471828955 This one] with all the reliably sourced content removed?

Agree that the RFC needs a neutral rephrase to present views of both sides and what is being disputed here. I reverted his additions regarding criticism which were not neutrally phrased, he chose to call an RFC but I guess DS's proposal, the current section and objections need to be added in subsections to this RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So seriously, what is the actual dispute? siafu (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is that what I have just quoted above in the RFC has been reverted out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)
The purpose of this RFC should be to fix this in a neutral way and avoid duplication instead of a 'yes/no' one. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the POV problems in question are solved. The label "domestic terrorists" for Kashmiri pro-freedom groups is also controversial and contentious and should not be used, since WP:Terrorist itself states that the use of "value-laden labels" is best avoided. To maintain WP:NPOV, use in-text attribution to describe who exactly calls Kashmiri groups fighting "against Indian interests" as terrorists/militants. It would be wise to bear in mind the old adage that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Mar4d (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word 'militant' along with attribution is used in such cases to be neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Seperatist groups" would be even better, since it entirely kills off the debate of who is, and who isn't, a terrorist/militant. Mar4d (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That will then be able to include the non violent or non banned ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources call them terrorists as that is what these groups are. We use what the sources use per WP:V Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, Hizbul Mujahideen "1998 Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists" Chronologies of modern terrorism pp272 "the Kashmiri terrorist organisations, such as the Hizbul Mujahideen" Terrorism: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow pp3 Combating terrorism: strategies of ten countries pp313 Root causes of suicide terrorism: the globalization of martyrdom pp29 All of these high quality sources call Hizbul Mujahideen a terrorist group. I can do the same with the other groups if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even when external sources (which could be reliable and take bias at the same time and would also have editorializing) are stating non neutral terms, wikipedia still has to be NPOV. Staying neutral is one of the basic concepts here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, are you now saying academic sources "editorialize"? It is hardly not neutral to call a terrorist group Terrorist. It is not for us to decide which terminology to use, that way lays WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say is reliable sources editorialize, as far as I see that is one of the requirement for a source to be reliable. But then wikipedia doesn't straight away uses the same terminology unless being mentioned in that perspective (in which case it is attributed to the source as well). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, newspapers editorialize. Academic sources tend not to. I only use academic sources in case you had not noticed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USERG and the above section in the link. I guess now I'm clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your point in linking to that was? I have never used a SPS. So no, you are not even remotely clear. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To prove that reliable sources which you claim to use would then have editorial oversight... books or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Which I claim to use"? Sorry, please let me know when I have used an unreliable source. And I believe you are confusing editorial oversight with "editorializing", these are very different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've not said that you used an unreliable source. I said that a reliable source would have an editorial oversight, it would be phrased per that perspective, while wikipedia observes NPOV. A reliable source is not necessarily a neutral source or does not necessarily presents all points of view. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I endeavor to use only academic sources, as they tend to be Peer reviewed And they also tend to present all points of view. This is why academic sources are considered the best sources on wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assumption that an academic source will automatically present all points of view. This dispute is a proof against that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crossposted from WP:NPOVN

Does the following comply with NPOV? Darkness Shines (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't comply. You should never present something contentious as fact. Because "Pakistan denies all such claims", you therefore need to add in-text attribution to the claim(s)—i.e., "according to so-and-so, ...". Also, are there some relevant quotations/exerpts from the book references you can provide us with? Nightw 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is hardly contentious as all mainstream sources say this. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Pakistan denies the claim. That makes it contentious. So oppose unless the attribution is added to the text. And I still haven't seen quotations from the sources, so these need to be verified. Nightw 22:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a hint, see the reception section, where already these things are present in attributed form. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which claim does Pakistan deny then? And you asked for quotes when? Yesterday? It is not contentious whatsoever as Pakistan view is a minority of one. However if you can find, say 10 academic sources which say they have not sponsored terrorism attribution can go in. I think 10 a reasonable number given the thousands of sources which say they have founded, supported, and continue to support terrorist and insurgent groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US accusation/description

I recommend you read WP:NPOV, the content is attributed. I have restored it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attributed or not.. this has WP:NPOV issues with the wording as well as the tone. You've added the content without consensus. This article was previously protected due your addition of such content. You've resumed your editwar now. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no POV issues that I can see, please explain what is POV about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been mentioned in previous sentences along with the US president's remark in the end... 1) bad usage of English language by using however twice making it look a confused statement. 2) Inconsistency among authorities which should be stated in a manner as before and not in self contradicting way. 3) Repetition of allegations is WP:UNDUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has been mentioned in previous sentences No, it has not. Were is the Inconsistency? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Already been mentioned: "However in 2011 The top U.S. military officer Adm. Mike Mullen publicly accused ISI, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan". Inconsistency: "However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more". The solution here is to simply add these references along with Mullen's allegations instead of restating what is already done in NPOV way. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to read. There is a world of difference between giving aid to the terrorists and being called a terrorist group. These are not the same thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the personal attacks. You've been persistantly commenting on me in every discussion. There's disagreement among the US authorities of this. And it is not the same thing.. but repetition of same matter. This can be added in the same sentence. "ISI is accused by U.S. authorities like Adm. Mike Mullen, for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan and being as dangerous as those organizations invovled." --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are two different things, try reading it a little slower. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion covers both regardless. What do you have to say about that? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is a BLP violation so remove it. Mullen never called the ISI a terrorist group. Again, these are two different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP? Where did I attribute Mullen to be making that accusation? I said 'authorities' like him so that his accusation can be inclusive. In short Mullen and his accusation are being given as an example of the greater accusation. Recheck the sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, read the sources. [1] Mullen has not said what you are attributing to him above. He spoke only of one group. He did not call the ISI a terrorist group. You are conflating two different things and creating a BLP issue were none need exist. The content is reliably sourced and verified. There is no reason within policy to remove it. So it shall stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no BLP issue here (you also need to confirm what that means). Mullen is not being attributed to having said that. I'll modify it again to make it clearer: "ISI is accused by U.S. authorities of terrorism, Adm. Mike Mullen accused ISI in 2011 for giving aid to the terrorists who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. However such claims where later rejected by U.S. President Barack Obama who said it was more complicated and a question of Pakistan could do more. Pakistan categorically denies all the allegations.(cited denial of BBC report which had such allegations)" --lTopGunl (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the content in question from your proposal. Which is US authorities describe the ISI as a terrorist organization They do not accuse, they have described. As I said, the content is fine. I have also separated this from the RFC as it is a different issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That amounts to an accusation. It has been fully attributed here. Their description is their view. Accusation stands well in this case. "Describes" brings WP:WEIGHT issues along with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of sources which describe this particular incident. Weight is not an issue, there is of course that Pakistan cannot deny US authorities describe the ISI as a terrorist organization as it would, well be stupid of them to do so. So I will not bother with this nay further, the edit is attributed, is is reliably sourced, it has been verified. There are no policy reasons at all for removing it, so it shall stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description is an accusation. Simple now? Pakistan denies the accusation not that they described it at all. That was obvious. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sick of this also, you may not use a denial of Pakistani support for terrorism as a denial for the US government calling the ISI a terrorist group. Pakistan cannot deny it Why do I have to explain the same thing over and over and over and over to you? Is it a WP:COMPETENCE issue? Or perhaps you are going deaf? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when you can base your argument on something not a personal attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? You have used that WP:HEAR on me quite a few times. There are no personal attacks in anything I have written, once again you go block shopping and deflect from the issues at hand with spurious allegations of personal attacks. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You mean to go around calling people deaf and link it to a legit policy to white wash it? This page is for content dispute anyway. What US authorities describe is an accusation or their view (which amounts to a claim). Pakistan denies terrorism claims. Pakistan certainly has rebutted this. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? How many times do you want to use "however" in a paragraph? The block quote is giving undue weight to Obama, it should be rewritten inline. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's quote was grossly misrepresented, the full quote is better for those reading the article to see what he actually meant, instead on someone sherry picking certain parts out. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add that quote. You should better watch your edit summaries when you revert. The full quote is not even attributed to the paper published in or to the interviewer or whatever. It is a copyvio. And even if it is fixed, it has WP:UNDUE issues. The article is about ISI. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is not a copyvio, you did not revert to the last standing version, you reverted to your preferred version. A gross misrepresentation of a source attributing something to a BLP has to be fixed, which is what I did. You have reverted 4 times since 09:07, 3 February 2012‎ so stop now please. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From BLP to copyvio version, really? You should have fixed the issue inline. See my above comment. And don't tell me about the reverts, you're far ahear of that (I don't think reverting some one who removed the translation counts to any editwar). Reverting copyvios is not editwar either. Your current quote has copied text attributed to no one. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quote is not a copyvio, go ask someone if you do not believe me. If you are going to attribute statements to a BLP they have to be accurate, the source was grossly misrepresented on what Obama actually said. Do you honestly think it is OK to misrepresent what people have said? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not defending the previous version which was quoting Obama, I didn't add that sentence. But my revert was for your copyvio version. If you think there were issues you should have fixed them... not introduce more. Adding quotes is not a copyvio, but not telling where they are from is. Currently it is simply chunks of copied text with no attribution to the interviewer or the publisher. Better to rephrase it inline (since adding a complete quote even in attribution is undue here). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama said in an interview regarding this that is attribution. A blockquote is not a copyvio, like I said go ask someone. I have asked for further eyes on the BLP board. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(out)Look, go read it yourself Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have only attributed to the direct statements of Obama... you have not attributed to the copied statement from the publisher "Obama added that whether Pakistan's ties with the Haqqani network are active or passive, Pakistan has to deal with it."[3] which was not a direct quote. Get it now? And even if this is resolved a full quote about a single event is undue here. The article is about an organization not that event. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy again, read it slowly and then a little slower the third time around. Quotes are not a copyvio. I will not discuss it further, just read the policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not quotes I'm talking about. This is a passive statement you copy-pasted from the source which was attributed to Obama but not in direct quotes. Check the source. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally that you do get my point, the next issue is that a block quote is undue. Even if this article was about that specific event having a full block quote would have to be considered for due weight. This article is about ISI, a blockquote from Obama about specific allegations related to a single timeframe is WP:UNDUE. Adding it inline in a rephrase or even with parts of quotations will be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I just did it to shut you up. It was not a copyvio. The full quote can either remain or the whole lot can go, you will not misrepresent what a BLP has said. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New content

  • JCAla, Do not add the already deadlocked content. If that discussion is completed on Taliban article then we can decide where to put it here (since you seem to be adding it on two locations). Duplication isn't good. The quotes you added were undue. Discuss this, it will be confusing to further engage in related changes while we have this RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you even talking about? That is totally new content, which has been fully attributed (thereby has nothing to do with above RFC) and sourced. You think just because something is in the Taliban article it would be a duplication to also have it here? Provide valid reasons for your general revert. JCAla (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, this is not completely new content... the part about allegations and denials is deadlocked at Talk:Taliban.. can we solve that there first (to keep discussions in one place)? And then, you added it to two places (or corrected it at one and then added it to the US reception as well). About the quotation.. there's already one quotation... wikipedia is not a quotation farm. And anyway, that quotation is undue. Care to discuss part by part? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion, how about taking the pre 2001 denial to WP:NORN? That is the most relevant board I can think of. For the rest... we can start a discussion here... I think some might still find its way in.. but not in this form. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I strongly suggest to you to not generally revert the edits of other editors when you have only some issues. Rather you should talk or correct the few issues you have.
  2. I did not write as a matter of fact, that the ISI supported the Taliban. Rather I wrote, "it is widely accepted" that the ISI supported the Taliban pre 9/11. That is keeping with the consensus version of the allegation/denial sentence. We even have the acknowledgement of that fact by Pervez Musharraf himself. Nothing to discuss here.
  3. So you take issue with the fact that as an introduction to the Taliban issue, under U.S. gov, we have "It is widely accepted that from 1994-2001, the ISI provided military support to the Afghan Taliban.[1] International officials have accused the ISI of continuing to support and even lead the Taliban today. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen stated: ..." because the Afghanistan section also mentions the same support?
  4. I added the Mike Mullen quotation which is the most relevant citation that can be cited in this regard. Do we now need an RFC on that also?
JCAla (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a general revert. I specifically objected here on talk page explaining why I objected on all additions. You changed "alleged" to "widely accepted", you also removed the denial completely. Don't think that has a consesnsus. Yes, given that it was already covered above where you made amends, it was redundant to put it all again in the US sectin. About Mullen's quotes, I don't think it is in due weight to put quotes repeatedly. Actually Mullen's allegation is listed and sourced if you read the section. If you want an RFC for that, you can do that.. but let's clear up the allegation mess first as that is spill over both Talban article and here. Do you want to take the pre 2001 denial to NORN (or may be NPOVN)? We can both add the sources (which actually are conflicting) and leave a comment on the Taliban article where it was being discussed. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)

  1. You objected on all additions, ok ... In your general revert, you also restored quite some funny unsourced stuff such as with regards to the CIA and ISI: "The Relationship was a positive and Strong one." or the favourite: [President] "Barack Obama said The president [Obama] said ..." What is that?
  2. Yes, I changed to "widely accepted" as we have established this as "widely accused" or "widely alleged" as a preliminary consensus version on the Taliban article. I removed the denial (as was written on this article) completely because it is factually inaccurate when the president of Pakistan himself admitted to the support BEFORE 9/11.
  3. Nah, Mullen's allegation is not properly explained and since the whole thing is about his statement, it is the most relevant thing to actually provide a quote on what he said in the article. Anything else is simply censorship.
  4. What exactly do you want to ask with regards to pre 9/11 support at the original research board?
JCAla (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the improvement of sentences such as the ones quoted to you above, I adjusted the denial/allegation thing in line with your objections. Have removed the 1994-2001 support from the US gov section for now. I think what now remains disputed by you is the addition of Mullen's quote, right? JCAla (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting was not the solution again... you've simply added back everything with the edit summary that you adjusted according to my objections (the only thing you fixed here was the repetition?).
  • This happens when you revert a large chunk of content. It is nearly impossible to fix intermediate edits, and a revert just because of that is not called general revert.
  • "Widely accepted" is different from "widely alleged" and you removed the denials again. I gave you sources for Pakistan denying this on that article. You didn't need to spill the dispute here and editwar.
  • No, this is not a quote farm. We already have one quote there and then we have Mullen's accusation already in the text. This is undue.
  • About the pre 9/11 allegation, we have a debate deadlocked on whether Pakistan denied this or accepted this (as you give citations for Musharaf and I provided for official versions), that needs to be cleared... whether on NPOVN or NORN... now that I think of it, it is a POV issue more than original research. Let's list it at WP:NPOVN.
--lTopGunl (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I restored two things: the things you didn't explicitly name as objecting to and the Mullen quote because it is all about that statement. Everything else was not a revert. As already pointed out to you above, I added the denial and I explicitly differentiated: "The Taliban regime is widely accepted to have been supported by the ISI and Pakistani military from 1994 to 2001, which Pakistan officially denied during that time, although then Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf now admits to supporting the Taliban until 9/11." That is a 100 % according to the sources. Do you want to object to that? We can take the Mullen quote to an RFC or noticeboard, though that is simply ridiculous. JCAla (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted at WP:NPOVN#Pakistan's denial of Taliban support before 2001. I explicitly objected to the allegations (and removal of denial) and Mullen's quote. Let's have some input about both there. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you added "Pakistan rejects" in front of the current accusations (kindly add the denial source to it too, it is added in the US section I guess). Also, you acknowledged that Pakistan officially denied it... can you add the sources which I provided on Taliban page with quotes (so that there's no further disagreement)? Musharaf's autobiography is not official so that can be discussed at NPOVN. Also if you agree that the official position actually was denial then you also need to reflect that at Taliban where it states dropped implying other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you replace widely accepted with widely alleged as on Taliban article, that part would be fine (we came to that consensus after much work.. don't go over that again). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment II

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The above section highlights the consensus that there is an opposition to this being implemented at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article have separate sections for the following.

  1. ISI support for the Taliban. This is well documented. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] [15] [16][17][18] [19][20][21]
  2. ISI human rights abuses. These are well documented. [22][1][23].[24]
  3. ISI creation of and aid to terrorist, insurgent and extremist groups. This is well documented. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31]
References in here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ a b "PAKISTAN'S SUPPORT OF THE TALIBAN". Human Rights Watch. 2000. Cite error: The named reference "Human Rights Watch" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Forsythe, David P. (2009). Encyclopedia of human rights (Volume 1 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0195334029. In 1994 the Taliban was created, funded and inspired by Pakistan
  3. ^ Gardner, Hall (2007). American global strategy and the 'war on terrorism'. Ashgate. p. 59. ISBN 978-0754670940.
  4. ^ Jones, Owen Bennett (2003). Pakistan: eye of the storm. Yale University Press. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-300-10147-3. The ISI's undemocratic tendencies are not restricted to its interference in the electoral process. The organisation also played a major role in creating the Taliban movement. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  5. ^ Randal, Jonathan (2005). Osama: The Making of a Terrorist. I.B.Tauris. p. 26. ISBN 9781845111175. Pakistan had all but invented the Taliban, the so-called Koranic students
  6. ^ Peiman, Hooman (2003). Falling Terrorism and Rising Conflicts. Greenwood. p. 14. ISBN 978-0275978570. Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban since its military intelligence, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) formed the group in 1994
  7. ^ Shaffer, Brenda (2006). The Limits of Culture: Islam and Foreign Policy. MIT Press. p. 267. ISBN 978-0262693219. Pakistani involvement in creating the movement is seen as central
  8. ^ Hilali, A. Z. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Ashgate. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-7546-4220-6.
  9. ^ Rumer, Boris Z. (2002). Central Asia: a gathering storm?. M.E. Sharpe. p. 103. ISBN 978-0765608666.
  10. ^ Pape, Robert A (2010). Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It. University of Chicago Press. pp. 140–141. ISBN 978-0226645605.
  11. ^ Harf, James E. (2004). The Unfolding Legacy of 9/11. University Press of America. p. 122. ISBN 978-0761830092. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Hinnells, John R. (2006). Religion and violence in South Asia: theory and practice. Routledge. p. 154. ISBN 978-0415372909.
  13. ^ Boase, Roger (2010). Islam and Global Dialogue: Religious Pluralism and the Pursuit of Peace. Ashgate. p. 85. ISBN 978-1409403449. Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency used the students from these madrassas, the Taliban, to create a favourable regime in Afghanistan
  14. ^ Armajani, Jon (2012). Modern Islamist Movements: History, Religion, and Politics. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 48. ISBN 978-1405117425.
  15. ^ Bayo, Ronald H. (2011). Multicultural America: An Encyclopedia of the Newest Americans. Greenwood. p. 8. ISBN 978-0313357862.
  16. ^ Giraldo, Jeanne K. (2007). Terrorism Financing and State Responses: A Comparative Perspective. Stanford University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0804755665. Pakistan provided military support, including arms, ammunition, fuel, and military advisers, to the Taliban through its Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)
  17. ^ Goodson, Larry P. (2002). Afghanistan's Endless War: State Failure, Regional Politics and the Rise of the Taliban. University of Washington Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0295981116. Pakistani support for the Taliban included direct and indirect military involvement, logistical support
  18. ^ Litwak, Robert (2007). Regime change: U.S. strategy through the prism of 9/11. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0801886423.
  19. ^ McGrath, Kevin (2011). Confronting Al-Qaeda. Naval Institute Press. p. 138. ISBN 978-1591145035. the Pakistani military's Inter-services Intelligence Directorate (IsI) provided assistance to the taliban regime, to include its military and al Qaeda–related terrorist training camps
  20. ^ Atkins, Stephen E. (2011). The 9/11 Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 540. ISBN 978-1598849219.
  21. ^ Hussain, Zahid (2007). Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 49. ISBN 0 85368 769 2. However, Pakistani intelligence agencies maintained some degree of cooperation with the Taliban elements fleeing the fighting.
  22. ^ Jackson, Richard (2011). Terrorism: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. Chapter 9. ISBN 9780230221178.
  23. ^ Walsh, Declan (28 July 2011). "Pakistan's military accused of escalating draconian campaign in Balochistan". The Guardian. London.
  24. ^ www.hrcp-web.org/pdf/balochistan_report_2011.pdf
  25. ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80. ISBN 978-8129709981.
  26. ^ Green, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973345-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  27. ^ Sisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 978-0415477055.
  28. ^ Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189. ISBN 978-1412970594.
  29. ^ Palmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196. ISBN 978-0742536036.
  30. ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84. ISBN 978-8129709981.
  31. ^ Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 540. ISBN 978-0-415-41157-8.

Discussion

  • Oppose all: Those are WP:POINT details of the same RFC started again after not getting a consensus above in the RFC above. And we have a separate article on human rights in Pakistan. This article is about the agency. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inter-Services_Intelligence&oldid=479292911"