Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence

...

Death of Osama bin Laden

I'm putting this POV text here until it can be corrected:

The Death of Osama bin Laden has also become a matter of controversy with many commentators over the world and especially in India suggesting that ISI must have played a role in protecting Osama,though ISI has denied these allegations and it seems unlikely that ISI played any role in protecting him because areas deep inside Pakistan would have been provided to him,not an area near the border like Abbotabad had ISI played any role.

66.251.226.2 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ISI and Mossad links

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/sep/08spec.htm The ISI knew Mossad would be interested in information about the Libyan, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian military. Pakistani army officers were often posted on deputation in the Arab world -- in these very countries -- and had access to valuable information, which the ISI offered Mossad.

By the early 1980s, the US had discovered Pakistan's Kahuta project. By then northwest Pakistan was the staging ground for mujahideen attacks against Soviet troops in Afghanistan and Zia no longer feared US objections to his nuclear agenda. But Pakistani concerns over Israel persisted, hence Zia decided to establish a clandestine relationship between Inter-Services Intelligence and Mossad via officers of the two services posted at their embassies in Washington, DC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.134.18 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ISI closes its political wing

Pakistani newspaper Dawn has broken the news that ISI has closed its political wing. Therefore, the DG Counter-Intelligence who was entrusted with monitoring political activities within the country in addition to to the original job of counter-intelligence will from now on perform only the latter. Since, the administrators have blocked editing of the article, could anyone of the admins please insert this segment in the article. Thanks. Razzsic (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Future?

Abhe, yaar, first, what did ya'll do to lock this article?

Anyway, here something to effect the future of ISI (politically). Can be added on to this page. Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

controversial political wing dissolved

Please updated the article: The controversial "political wing" of the top secret service agency has been disbanded. 202.75.197.38 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, the THIRD entry in here saying the same thing. Please read previous discussion, people.CSHunt68 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict deletion

Ok, I'm just following up to User:Xprtthinking's massive deletions here. I'm going to assume good faith as to his rationale but I want to make sure things are at least mentioned before moving on. The Kashmir conflict text doesn't have a mention of ISI other than a possible connection to Operation Tupac that isn't stated. The only connection seems to be some vague unsourced allegation about the ISI Director General and the results of the military conflict in general. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that there had been a section under "Controversies" Xprtthinking deleted here with good reliable sources about allegations regarding the Pakistan-side forces fighting in Kashmir, which I've inserted back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai attack source

I've reverted User:Xprtthinking's massive deletions here as to the 2008 incidents. Both seem to NY Times as reliable sources. For the fact that nothing has been provided to Pakistan, we should be able to find fresher sources that indicate Pakistan's (or from others) response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Godfathers of Taliban" addition

This silly little sentence is sourced from a single POV of a single Columnist Julian West in a op-ed how on earth it merits inclusion into the article is beyond me its basically just taking the title of the article and pasting it on the article it must be removed however wikivandal41 is convinced that Julian west represents the worlds view and what she says is "considered" by everyone pathetic attempt at a pov push 86.153.132.40 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I observed an edit war between you, (86.153.132.40) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikireader41). Apparently this post at talk page wasn't answered and the edits were reverted and edit was enforced by making the article restricted. I discussed this issue at chat with few administrators. Moreover, I moved the "Godfathers of Taliban" to Afghanistan section. This is too rational and inappropriate to include right on the top in introduction. It is exactly like the introduction of CIA mentions "Osama Bin Laden used to work for CIA". Plus, every intelligence agency in the world keeps his contact door open for other organization. To be simple, the statement "ISI is God father of Taliban and met with osama bin laden" was included in a move to defame the intelligence agency rather than improve the article. The statement now has a good location 1982-2007 and thats where it should belong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarmadhassan (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

selective quote

The quote made in the article is a brilliant example of selective and dishonest use of quoting:

"The Inter-Services Intelligence has long possessed the world's finest and most accurate human intelligence."

I think not.

The actual quote from the article: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1341405/Pakistans-godfathers-of-the-Taliban-hold-the-key-to-hunt-for-bin-Laden.html)

"The Inter-Services Intelligence has long possessed the world's finest and most accurate human intelligence within Afghanistan."

I think all would agree it gives just a slightly different meaning to the quote. Change it.

Darkisthenight (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

you are right. I have edited the quote as per reference. Sarmadhassan (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

News report: "Brig Imtiaz reveals CIA plots"

Just want to bring this report to the attention of those editing this article, in case they are not already aware of it. Link:

• http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=24241

--Hj108 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mossad Relations with Pakistan and ISI plz add it is fact <pplz must know it

In a September 2003 news article, it was alleged by Rediff News that General Zia-ul-Haq, the then President of Pakistan, decided to establish a clandestine relationship between Inter-Services Intelligence and Mossad via officers of the two services posted at their embassies in Washington, DC. The article further claimed that the ISI had offered Mossad information about Libyan, Syrian, Jordanian and Saudi Arabian military which it had acquired through officers on official military deputations on those countries.

George Crile, of the ‘Sixty Minutes’ program, presents the story of a congressman who became the foremost champion of the CIA campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan. A closer reading tells of how Mossad actually used Charlie Wilson to penetrate the CIA’s Afghan campaign, and thereby the ISI and the Pakistani government at all levels.

Charles “Nesbitt” Wilson is a 1956 Annapolis graduate who worshipped Winston Churchill and entered politics in 1961 at the age of 27 as the Texas State Representative. Wilson won a seat to Congress in 1973 as a Liberal. He regularly voted against Vietnam and eventually became of strong defender of Israel. Wilson’s appointment to the House Appropriations Committee and a strategic alliance with CIA veteran Gust Avrakotos ignited the covert actions that gave Mossad the opportunity to infiltrate the ISI.

Wilson had a close relationship with the Israeli embassy’s congressional liaison officer, Zvi Rafiah. According to George Crile, “Rafiah is a short, very smart Israeli who Wilson always believed was a highly placed Mossad agent... [he, Rafiah] had always acted as if he owned Wilson’s office. One of the staffers kept a list of people he needed to lobby. He would use the phones, give projects to the staff, and call on Charlie to intervene whenever he needed him.”pg 159 Crile’s account suggests that Rafiah was the dominant figure in this partnership.It can be said that events unfolding before our eyes today usually have roots deep in the past. Wilson’s loyalty to Israel and his association with Mossad made him closer to the sympathizers of Israel in the United States. Dick Cheney, who stands accused by a growing number of analysts for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks, played a key role in having Wilson appointed to the White House Select Committee on Intelligence. This fact may suggest that Cheney was also an important player in the pro-Israeli network.In summary, the Israelis became major players in the exchange of information and commodities with Afghanistan and Pakistan, not by interfacing with the CIA, which opposed their involvement, but via Mossad, the Israeli lobby in the United States—using Congressional delegations to establish their own direct connections—and by direct interaction with the ISI in Pakistan. The Israeli/Pakistan connection was crucial for infiltrating the ISI and providing Israeli intelligence with a very secure footing inside Pakistan’s intelligence agency.In her second term in power, Benazir Bhutto also intensified the ISI’s liaison with Mossad in 1993, and she too began to cultivate the American Jewish lobby. Bhutto is said to have had a secret meeting in New York with a senior Israeli emissary, who flew to the U.S. during her visit to Washington, DC in 1995. Since his days as Bhutto’s Director-General of Military Operations, Pervez Musharraf has been a keen advocate of Pakistan establishing diplomatic relations with the state of Israel.After Musharraf overthrew Nawaz Sharif’s government, the ISI-Mossad relationship deepened. This close interaction set the tone for Israeli-Pakistani relations until 2001, regardless of who was the incumbent in Israel, or whether a civilian or military regime ruled Pakistan. The most important contacts were between Mossad and the ISI, and the traffic the information. Pakistan passed intelligence about the Gulf States and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and Libya, whose programs Pakistani scientists had helped to build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.232 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam Yahiye Gadahn

Adam Gadahn was not captured, yet this was rumored in early March. This section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtechnocrat (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

New Section proposal named "india's baap"

Disruptive, WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suggest a new section for the ISI named India's Baap, as the ISI is India's baap and will remain India's baap for decades and decades to come. Thank you. Goodbye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.210.84 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC) I suggest you find who is your your baap and then add stupid commentsManakattu (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Western involvement in terrorism inside Pakistan

Most of the information comes from one blog posting, hardly a reliable source. It also promotes a ridiculous conspiracy that the U.S. wants to do this to get Pakistan to get rid of it's nuclear weapons. 71.65.71.145 (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

yes I agree. and how in the world does this relate to ISI ? the section needs to be deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.Twobells (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories against ISI

I removed some of the conspiracy theories against ISI and Pakistan military that were posted, such as ISI opening 'hundreds of training camps' and whatnot. The source being provided does not state that, and in addition to that what the source does say is mere allegations supported by no evidence. One of the users Wikireader41 (talk) (He's an Indian as it's obvious from his profile) keeps removing these edits under the name of 'vandalism', even though if any one is doing vandalism, it's this user.

you are removing cited info. please refrain otherwise you will be blocked.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a citation which you might want to read[1] to further understand role of ISI is supporting Kasmir militants.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is not cited in this article. You're claiming things about hundreds of militant camps opening. Please mention where that is stated in this article. Secondly, this article contains word of mouth (i.e. mere accusations) and no solid evidence to support that. I can also add cited info that US is involved in terrorism by the same logic if you consider this a good citation.

You'll agree that the claim about hundreds of militant camps is not true and not cited. Hence I am removing that particular claim. We can discuss the other claims and whether they should be put here or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.53.163 (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree that these claims need to be qualified as 'allegations', since they are not supported by any solid evidence but just word of mouth?70.27.53.163 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. ISI is widely believed to support terrorism not only in Kashmir but also elsewhere including Afghanistan and this is well documented by RS. what solid evidence would satisfy you ??? the current head of ISI is wanted in a criminal case filed in New York.[2] If he fails to appear I think it would be reasonable to assume he is guilty as charged. the FAS clearly states that ISI runs terror training camps in Kashmir. Some ISI operatives were recently shot by a US diplomat after trying to illegally intimidate him.[3]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that something being 'widely believed' is not really evidence that something is true. That's a logical fallacy. What is RS btw? Can you provide links, etc? A lot of people believing something is NOT solid evidence that something is true. Whatever FAS is, it needs to provide some sort of evidence - pictures, admission statements - to support their claims. So still, you're stuck on word of mouth it seems. Now as far as case against ISI head, that doesn't establish anything because it is a case filed by jewish families who believe ISI was involved in some terrorist attacks. It establishes zero as far as your argument is concerned. Not sure what the ISI operative intimidating (yet another conspiracy theory?) has to do with what we're discussing here. 70.27.49.88 (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

At WP what is reported in WP:RS is what is important NOT the truth. please read WP:TRUTH for some guidance. also wikipedia is not a court of law where we argue endlessly about what is the truth and what is not. we report what is published in RS in a neutral fashion per WP:NPOV. well TIME does not think it is a conspiracy theory. The fact that the head of ISI is a wanted man needs to go into the introduction as does te fact that ISI is widely believed to support terrorists. you want to do the honors or would you like me to add that bit of important info which is currently missing.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So how are you exactly publishing this in a neutral fashion? It is clear that these are mere allegations because there's no solid physical evidence backing them up. Answer me this. Can you prove without any doubt that ISI is doing what you claim? If not, then you need to qualify your claim as allegation. You are presenting it in such a way that it makes it sound like an established, proven fact. So to be neutral, you should add the 'alleged' qualification. Well TIME doesn't have to think it's a conspiracy theory. 9/11 conspiracy theorists also don't believe it's a conspiracy theory. What you need is some sort of evidence, not these kinds of mere words of mouth. As far as the case against ISI head is concerned, please go ahead, however you should make it absolutely clear that this is a case by a few jewish families in the US. And again, allegations against ISI needs be qualified as 'allegations' if you put it in the introduction. (Btw, just FYI, pretty much only Indians read these types of articles on Wikipedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.49.88 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said that we are not a court of Law. Prove to me that Pakistan is a sovereign country ?? We report what is given in RS. why do you think that what TIME puts ii its columns is not reliable. The last part of your statement is utter and complete nonsense as Wikipedia is read around the world not just be Indians. Why is Pasha not showing up in New York to face the allegations ???? --Wikireader41 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed wikipedia is court of law. However, you need to speak facts here, and the fact is that it's not been established that ISI does what you're claiming it does. If something is not proven, you need to present it accordingly, i.e. show that you're making allegations. You're presenting allegations as facts, and lying straightforward to anyone who reads this. You report what is given in RS by manipulating it. It is making allegations, you're presenting it as a fact. Your source makes allegations and does not provide evidence, hence to be neutral you see that these are allegations. You do not take either side. Right now, what you want to do is not reporting the article in a neutral fashion, it is taking one side and publishing from that viewpoint. As far as wikipedia, I am talking about this particular page. I can guarantee you that pretty much only Indians read it. Where is the TIME source, though? I only see BBC. As far as Pasha goes, that's not relevant. You do not decide whether he's guilty or not. Those that do decide have not done so yet. 70.27.51.150 (talk) 03:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

non of the three sources provided [4] [5] or [6] talk about "Hundreds of Training Camps" as being reflected in old revision. The First reference comes from an NGO a Think Tank. The article cites other sources to reflect its interpretations which cannot be taken as universal facts. ISI has been supporting militancy not terrorism in Kashmir territory as per other two references with the word using "allegedly" Key quotes from a leaked Ministry of Defence think-tank paper which alleges that Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI, has indirectly helped the Taleban and al-Qaeda and should be dismantled or Pakistan has long been accused of supporting militant groups operating in Kashmir. I have edited the sentence to "ISI is widely believed to train and support militancy in Kashmir region." to keep a balanced view on the subject. Hope this argument will finish here. Sarmadhassan (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Wikileaks Expose: US authorities relist the Interservices Intelligence Directorate As A Terror Org

The US authorities have listed the Pakistani intelligence service (the Interservices Intelligence Directorate) as a terrorist organisation comparable with al Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbollah.

Section 4.3.10 US

* (2011) Following the killing of two innocent Pakistani civilians by American CIA agent Raymond Davis, the ISI had become more alert and suspicious about CIA spy network in Pakistan, which had disrupted the ISI-CIA cooperation,[36] and led to the arrest of an American in Pakistan.[37] And at least 30 suspected covert American operatives have suspended their activities in Pakistan and 12 have already left the country.[38]

This section is extremely POV and the sources given are either spurious to the content of this section, or complete fabrications not found in any of the sources. For example:

innocent Pakistani civilians

, notice "innocent" and "civilian", these two words are not found in ANY of the sources. In fact, the shooting incident itself is sparsely mentioned in only two of the sources, neither of which give any details or mention of those who were actually shot. I'm going to edit this section so it conforms to the information actually given in the sources.Napkin65 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also deleted the sentence that describes a connection between the Raymond Davis shooting incident and the arrest of an American that had overstayed his visa. None of the sources indicated a link and the source about the arrest of an American for visa issues had nothing to do with the ISI.Napkin65 (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sentence in lead (taliban ties)

The sentence in the lead "ISI has ties to militant Islamist groups and supported the rise of the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s" is supported by a New York Times overview. An IP has removed it twice. They seem to think it is undue. Can you please provide evidence that contradicts this? We are supposed to present all majority and significant minority perspectives published in accordance to their weight. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was removed again. I restored it again. Please use the talk page. Jesanj (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[7] [8] [9]

You can search more for yourself. It's inadequate to add this line in the first paragraph as it gives a bad impression which is wp:pov. So I'm removing this leading sentence. If you have to include this information without pushing pov, you can create a separate section about the topic (if its not already there) and attribute the pov to its origin. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Before you get revert happy, maybe you should read my argument below and discuss things first. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reviewed your source. Refer to my reply below. NY Times also mentions Pakistani govt denying like it mentioned the US and the Indian govt accusing of the ties. So you are just pushing POV. Also read Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" & WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As per now, I'm editing the article to my last edit. I think I've given more than enough sources to prove it as a POV issue, so instead of edit warring, review those sources and attribute the US view to US in a separate section with relevant sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I replied below, FYI. Jesanj (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that you finally placed the text in a section. Please attribute it to the POV holder (read US govt). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai Attacks

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/world/asia/30pstan.html [10] [11] [12] [13]

Pakistan govt denies any ties with these attacks. So its WP:POV to add this to the last sentence of first paragraph. For Indian view point and accusation, there is already a section present. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the New York Times is a reliable source for this statement. Just because the Pakistani government denies something, doesn't mean we have to reproduce their opinion always. Doing so would give undue weight to the Pakistani government. They are a government. Wikipedia articles, however, are to be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The NYT qualifies. The GoP does not. Jesanj (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My first source is NY times itself. I've reviewed the NY times article you cited and it refers to US govt. accusing ISI. Now as per your words, US govt. isn't any more reliable source than Pakistan govt? For US accusation (like there's a section for Indian POV on the issue), if necessary can be mentioned in an appropriate section. But saying this in the first paragraph is definately wp:pov. Also, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to introduce a govt agency like this. Such ties, even if we say are true for the sake of argument, are better off in relevant sections). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess you should read the source again. The sentence does not attribute the statement to U.S. officials. If you think it is definitely POV, you can always as for a WP:3O or bring it up at WP:NPOVN to generate a more robust consensus. Take a look at WP:LEAD, that should ease your misguided concern that we should censor the lead. Jesanj (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no issue of bring up user contribution or dispute resolution. You need to check the source again. Quoting from your source:

"In the minds of many American officials.." (start of the article)

"In September, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that the ISI had aided the insurgents who attacked the American Embassy.."

"The agency faced scathing criticism within the country as well. In July, Obama administration officials said they believed that the I.S.I. ordered the killing in late May of a Pakistani journalist.."

Clearly NY Times' source is the US govt. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote from the NYT is It has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks. What makes you think that their source for that sentence is the U.S. gov? Jesanj (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For your quote, the article started with the US govt's point of view hence the reader takes it as inclusive. Not to mention the very sentence before it and every time it starts a paragraph it shouts out loud that it is saying what American govt says. NY times also being based in US, makes it not so neutral on this issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No no no. The article starts off with "The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate is Pakistan's military equivalent of the Central Intelligence Agency." The beginning of the next sentence is not an attribution of everything to the U.S. government. It would be illogical to think that. The NYT is a journalistic outfit. They use sources other than the U.S. government. It's unfortunate you don't yet understand that or the fact that despite being based in the U.S., the publishing is considered separate. Jesanj (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are defending it blindly. They have not mentioned any other source. They have not refered to any other party. If you read the full article in a flow, the only impression you get is that they are conveying US govt's POV. Its about presenting a neutral POV. See Wikipedia:PRIDE.

[14]

Now this article presents a neutral source (even though you might question the neutrality like me since the publisher is based in Pakistan, but the source it gives is neutral unlike NY Times). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If you want to continue your arguments about the NYT not being reliable (because it is only representing the U.S. government) for its statements you can do so here, FYI. Jesanj (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That is one argument (but by taking it to the reliability notice board, you seem to be deviating from the point and making it an issue of NYT's reliability which counts second). The first thing to notice is, its reporting per US gvt. according to the article. So whether it is neutral on its own is a question for later.

Before we talk about NYT's reliability, the part you quote is in the paragraph starting from:

"In the minds of many American officials..." (hence referred to US gvt)

NYT has credited US gvt all along the article.

I guess attributing the accusation to the US govt resolves this dispute. (refer to my comment on above section). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't resolve the dispute. You're arguing that the lead should be censored when you misguidedly argue it is

“ inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to introduce a govt agency like this. Such ties, even if we say are true for the sake of argument, are better off in relevant sections ”

I'm concerned you may be here to "help Pakistan" example without understanding how things are supposed to work around here WP:NPOV, etc. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict or call into question the NYT when they say: "The agency helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the 1990's ... It has also worked closely with groups that have conducted terror attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks"? If you've linked something that calls that into question please quote it directly so everyone can see it to discuss. Then we can discuss WP:NPOV. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not try to get other editors prejudiced by valid wikipedia activity. Now that is called canvassing! What I did was through wiki's talkpage. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan is a valid wikipedia project to help on articles related to Pakistan. Donot take wikipedia's awards and projects as a prejudice against editors.

Your own source NYT is referring it to US govt! before you go all rolling to different notice boards, read the text again. Its crediting that information to US officials. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So you've changed your mind about censoring the lead? That's progress. I assume you're also dropping the POV issue. You didn't quote any source questioning the NYT conclusions. And not everything in that profile is attributed to the U.S. government. Are you hard of hearing? As I've already said, the thread at RSN is probably (if anyone will ever comment) the place for that silliness. And canvassing is a form of attracting editors to a discussion that can bias the sample through selection bias. Try again. You seem to be here to advocate on the side of Pakistan vs. India. But Wikipedia is not a battleground between anything, including two countries. We're here as an exercise in scholarship, to reflect high-quality reliable sources. Jesanj (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I didnt drop anything. I just said, NYT itself credits US govt of its story. Yes, even the lines you claim. Read again, ask other editors. It starts by telling its what US officials think. Since you are referring to it, I think you need to properly review WP:HEAR yourself.

You are misusing the statement about WP:Canvassing. Read the appropriate notification section:

"On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)..."

Misleading claims such as this come in WP:Harassment.

Also That comment was about articles that needed POV balance, which is what one should do. You seem to be wiki-stalking me already. You should know that wiki-stalking and/or wiki-hounding result in permanent blocks. You should avoid misleading statements and blaming me for canvassing. It is scene as a personal attack when you wrongly accuse another editor. You are not assuming WP:Good Faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This talk page really is for discussing improvements to the ISI article, by the way. (Maybe I should have saved some of what I said above for your talk page.) So you do believe in censoring the lead? So you do think everything the NYT reported is sourced to the U.S. government? Those ideas are pretty clearly silly to me. Jesanj (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You should have thought of that before attacking me for all that.

I don't believe in censoring the lead. I believe in putting it in under the US govt's reception of ISI in the reception section and attribute it to them rather than the encyclopedia telling the fact for US govt. Now that I guess is progress towards solution if u are really assuming good faith.

NYT is basing the story and all its facts on US officials' theories, so let US govt bear the credit too and not NYT. you should read through the NYT article again. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We should probably wait for RSN to bear that one out. Repeating something over and over does not make it consensus. Jesanj (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RSN is only relevant to the neutrality of NYT. You should read what I wrote about the POV in my last comment. You have failed to give any reference that says ISI has ties with any such organizations. I'm shifting that para to the US reception of ISI section as per NYT citation. You can comment here or call an RFC if you have any valid reference. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RSN is for the reliability of the NTY's work. The NYT is not the U.S. government, so that would be inappropriate in my opinion. Check out my most recent edit.[15] It adds some nice info I think. Jesanj (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a totally inappropriate edit, in my opinion. It violates WP:V and WP:NPOV in my opinion. That is not what the NYT said. Jesanj (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I said, RSN is for NYT. NYT is not US govt but its editorials might have a hint of nationalism.

As far as this case was concerned, my first claim was that NYT isn't even taking credit for that information but only reporting about US govt. You can call an RFC if you think it violates WP:POV & WP:V.

Your new edit is fact based. Now thats progress. We're good now.

PS. you should check if what you just added to the lead isn't already mentioned in the article, for the sake of avoiding redundancy. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're making some progress somewhere. =) I posted again at RSN for now. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, FYI. Did you mean something else? Jesanj (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

it's quite amusing to follow this discussion , and i'm glad you guys are making some progress. here's my two cents:

• the lead is supposed to summarize the content of the article
• the article, however, is a total mess. in addition, i suspect that there are copyright violations as well.

i would like to add that we all are here to create a reliable, and thus neutral and informative, internet encyclopedia (so please stop the talk of "selection-bias" or whatever). the current version is clearly neither neutral nor reliable, independently of what is written in the lead or not. i suggest that you and topgun/hassanhn5 clean up this article, through collaboration and discussion. that's what wiki is all about. the lead is the last thing you need to discuss. speaking of the lead, a side note: the cia and saudi-arabia, together with isi, did in fact also support and build the taliban...that should be mentioned in the lead too. there are many excellent sources to consult (as per rsn), like this book [16]. there are two-three others that i'm aware of.-- mustihussain (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you got what I meant. Yeah, its up to you to see if its good enough since you added the detail. I do assume WP:Good Faith. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill on the Pakistani govt. opinion on foreign govt. opinions

Five citations are Wikipedia:Citation overkill for a denial on the Pakistani govt. behalf. One would be sufficient. Jesanj (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we're already having a long discussion on this, it would be good to prevent another such discussion. I won't call it an overkill if I look at above conversation. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is entirely a different topic. It deserves another section. Citation overkill is citation overkill. One citation is sufficient. Jesanj (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, its a different issue. But you didn't get my point. What I mean is, this fact probably needs more citations since many editors would be challenging it.

Easy solution: The denial of claims phrase is in both Indian & US versions' sections. I suggest two citations each be given (but different from each other so as to extend scope of further reading and verification). Note that both phrases have been tagged with the same five references. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

NYT markwellman

seriously they cannot be used as neutral sources when talking about Pakistan ISI. Markwellman so called report has been proven has fabrication and New York times has 0 credibility after its role in the iraq war and blaming Al Qaeda for the Norway massacre. Also even the US Govt,British and Tony Blair has rejected that Pakistan ISI was involved in mumbai attack.why are indian conspiray theories still here ? i dont see anything on the CIA page accusing them of 9/11 ??--Ambelland (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Its a mess... Conspiracy theories have to go in a single section and not all over the page. That's why we need massive fixing of this article. Please tag this article with appropriate tags, so that interested users can contribute. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

there should be a special section about ISI's great contribution and success in the war on terror . I dont think Indian allegation should be on this page. iran accused the CIA of causing drought but no one takes those claims seriously . Also I dont see why in the very first paragraph ISI role in Soviet-Afghan war, and Afghan Civil War is discussed, they should be discussed in relevant section , the first paragraph should just talk about organization objectives,mission,structure and great role in caputring Al Qaead militants . --Ambelland (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Soviet war was one of the main roles, even achievement of ISI, so it was summarized in the start. I'll let Jesanj comment on the issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

random books and using harsh terms

used the word terrorist, assumes bad faith, and the correct word is militant.some say militant others say Kashmiri Freedom Fighters. and LET has never been convicted of 26/11 attacks groups mentioned have never killed civilians and are local movements and only hold loose associated with individuals who in the past had been associated with groups affialted with ISI, so to say support is incorrect --Ambelland (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Baluchistan conflict and other criticism

My recent edits are reliably sourced and written in a NPOV manner, why are they being removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but they where written a POV, the edits where made in bad faith , with the clear aim to malign the organisation

• Its pretty clear the sole aim of your edits is to spread negative information rather than constructive . Your attempts to link ISI funding to LET is with out facts . LET has never been convicted , and you are presenting indian allegations as facts
• no section needs re writting, you felt the need to remove over 4 paragrahs and create a new section covering things already covered with out talking to other users, also you edits are all in bad faith...random books mean nothing)
• Balouchistan is a part of Pakistan so no need for a separate section on balochistan, when all operation in pakistan are already discussed,,,stop making massive changes with out consensus of all
• Using the terms terrorist, is disputed as one man terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, the correct word is militant --Ambelland (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Darkness shines, you need to discuss it here. The content you want to add wont be lost and you can add it if the consensus is that after a discussion here. The content should be added in a balanced manner even if it is cited. That's NPOV. This is the correct place for the discussion about what should remain in the article and not the edit summary. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Shove it, what I write is neutral and well sourced. Human rights watch is a reliable source, as are the books from the academic press which are used as sources, if you disagree take it to the RSN board, I will not debate this endlessly, what I have done to the article was an improvement.Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for all the issues which the article currently has Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• A discussion here is pre-requisite to taking the issue to DRN or RSN (if citation reliability is the issue). Discuss here before further reverts by all sides. I think there is another issue involved here too, that is, that some content added might actually belong to the criticism section (if the consensus is to keep it). So the addition itself is not the only issue here. Darkness Shines no body has the time for an endless debate. But the fact there were reverts means there are objections. I'm sure you don't mind clarifying the addition in the least. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Darkness Shines' version of things falling under "domestic" is clearly better sourced, concise, clear and written in good English. The version you restored is repetitive and unclear with regards to whom what sentence is referring. It is also unstructured. Then, I am sure you don't mind clarifying why you removed all things Afghanistan-related including the consensus version of the 1995-2001 sentence.

@Darkness Shines, I recommend you to seek RSN or DRN. JCAla (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My removal was not intended at the specific sentence (or the structuring at large) as I agreed my self for that to be a neutral sentence. It was the rest of the paragraph that you changed that I intended to revert. Also, note the canvassing policies. Being called in by other editors to participate in a dispute [17] raises a question and calls for you to voluntarily refrain from following up. In anycase the last standing version had some issues too, related to BLP, so your version reigns till the resolution as the admin reverted it per that. About structuring, there are some criticism in the sections that belongs to its own section (even if kept) regardless of the references added to it. Domestic section is there for the services the organization provides or is aimed to provide for domestic purposes. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for advice is not canvassing, there were no BLP issues in the content I added. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean there were BLP issues in the content that was already there. Asking for advice is not canvassing (and only hints of such in the scenario) but then he participated here in response, that is why I only addressed him. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use abusive language, I have explained in 4 points, why you are biased . HRW makes allegations ? so what I never removed them, all I did was provide context , you keep removing my 4 !!! articles , about the violent insurgents you made it biased then you tried to blame ISI , tahts the only edit you made, showing your agenda. I explained why your linking of mumbai attacks to isi is false, I await your reply,biased books dont count no conspiray theories --Ambelland (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are of the opinion the sources are not reliable then please use the reliable sources notice board, if you think books from academic press's are "biased" then again, RSN board. I removed badly written content and replaced it with well sourced and neutral language. If you think it was not neutral take it to the NPOV notice board. I do not care why you think the ISI involvement in the Mumbai massacre was false, the source say otherwise, WP:V not Wp:Truth Darkness Shines (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai attacks information is already present in Inter-Services_Intelligence#Indian_government and in case of elaboration should be added to that section. This has already been discussed before and gone through RSN once. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is why you are supposed to discuss here when reverted. The reverting editor has a reason for reverting. Pakistan's denial is there in that section. You just added the content to wrong section. You can move the criticism about Mumbai attacks to that section after the protection expires. The next concern with this is that the denial has to weigh in with the allegation. I've not fully check rest of the addition, I guess Ambelland will comment on that for now. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove my 4 paragraph on the topic ? explain ? just so you beloved paragraph can stay ? you created a new section for no reason, its clear you made the edits in abd faith if you where unable to "notice it before" you should improve you reading skills, and I was right to accuse you of vandlism for repeating things already there but in a more biased fashion... restructuring of the article is done on conesnous you dont have sole authority for that --Ambelland (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed them as they were so badly written. Please stop your personal attacks as you were asked to. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

pot ? kettle ? , I have requested you to not use abusive languge ... I do not think you removed them for being poorly worded instead because you where promoting a POV, its been 48 hours + at no point did you mention this alleged spelling and grammer concern of yours. if that was the case you should raised it in the talk box...really no one can believe this Do other editors think if spelling is bad that is a basis for creating a new section ? as for the Mumabi link that is only a view held by the Indian goverment , hence it is not a mainstream view and a conspiracy. the kashmiri groups cannot be reffered to as terrorist, wikipedia only uses the world militant .you use of word terrorist suggests a personal bias --Ambelland (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Learn to indent please. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Darkness shines, bad grammar is not a criteria for removal of content. You need to correct the wording instead. And as Ambelland pointed out, the word militant is used because one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and this issue has been discussed many many times. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That is preposterous, it was far easier to rewrite than correct, you will notice what I wrote was concise, accurate and well sourced. A terrorist is a terrorist per what reliable sources say, if wiki does not use the word terrorist then why Terrorism? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. Even when rewritten, completely replacing the content with your own wording also changes the context and tone. That can be objected upon. Now what's done is done. We can work out to put that content back in a better form. I think there has been content removed that was sourced and still not put bacl, that has to be dealt with too. No, you don't use the word 'terrorist' when there are objections from the other side. You may not give the example of Terrorism here because this issue is different. Pakistan recognizes some of those groups as freedom fighters. Now NPOV has to deal with the issue. Militant here would be the best option. Hope that is clarification enough. Now if you take this specific problem to a notice board, you would clearly be advised to use 'militant' here. Why not save time and handle the huge chunks that still need discussion? I'm putting the points we can agree upon into a list so that we can ask for that edit to be made or make it on unprotection:

• Mumbai attacks need to go to their own section in a balanced form.
• Word terrorist needs to be replaced with militant where ever contentious or disputed.
• The word in the decided lead sentence being used from Taliban here has been replaced to "Pakistan frequently denies" from "vigorously"; that has to be put back and sourced from that article.
• What the local govt says about missing people in balouchistan , and more context of ISI attempts to end the bloody insurgency which targets other ethinic group and govt officials (added by Ambelland [18])

Hope fully the list will grow. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lashkar-e-Taiba are a terrorist organization per reliable sources. Hizbul Mujahideen are a terrorist group per reliable sources. These are the two groups named in my edit. The last of the section "The ISI has a long history of supporting terrorist groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests." is from Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. pp. 189. ISBN 978-1412970594. The source clearly says what I have written, so the word terrorist is used. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't understand. The sources might use the word - they are not bound by an NPOV policy. We are. It's simple, a source can use author's choice of words even being reliable but we have to use NPOV. That is why we have different RSN & NPOVN boards. Get the point? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You do not understand, the sources say terrorism, we use what the sources say per WP:V, now if you want I can provide hundreds of sources which say Pakistan supported and continues to support terrorists, all will be from academic publishers. The section on their support for terrorists will stay and be expanded upon. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For that I will ask you to read the closer's comments on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Taliban. This matter and others like this have to be decided with neutrality even with sources provided. Just because a source calls something by one name doesn't mean it is neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

mumbai attacks has its own article, I suggest you work on precedent, the aim of this aritcle is to provide a summary on each event, not a PHD desseration on each . I do think its easier to remove 3 paragraphs than to rephrase them, particulary when the 3 paragraphs provide critical context and rebuttal from local authoriteis, you should not attempt to make massive changes to the article with out agreement of all ,,, I ask everyone to be aware of I wonder what admins think of Blanking ? and Page lengthening ?, I have made theese points for general wellbeing of humanity I am not accusing anyone

what ever the author says, wikipedia has its own standards of what you can call a group...ISI alleged support of such groups in the past and was part of india-pakistan cold war pre 2005 ceasefire , and india also supported proxy groups , so there is a need for context . move such allegation to the india section, we already cover it...no need to list minute by minute analysis of Pakistan defence policy , does india page talk about supporting Tamil Tigers or pro indain kashmiri militants ?--Ambelland (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if LET did carry out the Mumbai attacks,which it self is debtable some have suggested it was an RSS operation to kill senior 5 Indian Police Officers , ISI had nothing to do with LET, what happened 20-10 years ago is irrelevant, and ISI played no role in the mumbai attacks operation . so you cant take a quote from a book saying ISI supproted LET in 1995, and then use that as evidence to blame ISI for attacks in 2008 --Ambelland (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Refocusing the additions

I've reverted to previous version and re-added the content by Ambelland and Darkness Shines and removed any BLP issues or any other POV from it. We can balance, step by step, all the additions here so as to prevent confusions. Ambellands contributions need over haul too. For now, this doesn't mean I've removed anyone's additions; last 'reorganization' was quite a mess and it was hard to figure out all the changes that had been made. So this way it will be better and easy to prevent any POV additions from any side. My edits if viewed step by step will hopefully clarify what I did (that is why I didn't do it all in a single edit). Keeping in mind the list I created above, we can add/remove anything inconsistent. I'm re-adding a new list here as required of now:

• Mumbai attacks need to go to their own section in a balanced form.
• Word 'militant' needs to be used instead of 'terrorist' where ever contentious or disputed. (done for where I saw)
• Content about activities in Balochistan needs to be further balanced to present neutral POV. (the activities are double stated in "Operations" -> "Pakistan" -> "2000s" related to "Activities in Balochistan". This needs to be balanced along with the point below which are inter related).
• What the local govt says about missing people in balouchistan , and more context of ISI attempts/aims to end the bloody insurgency which targets other ethnic group and govt officials... (needs Copy editing).

Do not revert the article as yet, if you think you don't find anything related to your contribution in there you can paste it here, I'm sure it will either already be present in different wording or be unsourced. If not the case, it can be re-added after discussion here. All current content is subject to this review and all new (not added as of now) content related to this dispute should be added after passing through review by all involved editors here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

no Need for new section

I dont know why the some users feel the need for balouchistan needs its own subsection it can go in the same order as (1980s) etc etc

balouchistan counter insurgency operatios are just another operation for ISI, nothing special and hence no need to treat it as more special

also why was the response of the local govt removed with out any reason ?

"Whilst the Provincial Government says it is doing its best to improve law and order and end target killing which it blames on rival factional fighting.As many as 985 people have been sentenced so far while the cases of 875 accused in various crimes were in the courts" source http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=24183 furthere more another section says "From 1994-2001, the ISI is widely agreed by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces "

it should say "From 1994-2001, the ISI is widely agreed by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in the after math of the fall of Commmunist Afghan when the Afghan Civil War started power" , I think its wrong to refer to all groups then as anti taliban, they changed sides many times and groups where fighting for thier interest not some grand primarily anti taliban allianceBold text' --Ambelland (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

--Ambelland (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It needs it's own section as there is a lot which needs doing to this article, specifically the human rights abuses by the ISI in the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

there is no reason why all of that cannot be mentioned in the same format as the other ISI operations are. There is also a difference beetween human rights violations and police brutality --Ambelland (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:INDENT. Reliable sources say human rights abuses, not police brutality. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the tags

• Can you tell what exactly do you term as fan point of view? I think you don't call own additions as fan content? So it is balanced just per that.
• The article is in prose... what is the "list" tag for?
• Incoherent text? An example please?

Take this (WP:TAGBOMB) into view before tagging an article without addressing the issue, --lTopGunl (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

To begin I note the well sourced, concise prose I had added has now been removed and the previous rubbish put back in it's stead. The list tag is obvious, the article has a list format to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I put it back, if not; tell me which one (paste it in the above section where it was being discussed - I've created a subsection there for this purpose). the "previous rubbish" you referred to is sourced content needing copy editing. The article is certainly not in list format. There are parts of it in list but that doesn't make the article a list. You've to see list articles and compare them to this. This is nothing like that. You've not addressed other tags. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Suppression of criticism is what a fanboy would do, the lede even says they are a premier intel agency. I have decided to rewrite the content in userspace and then add it to the article, fed up of being reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"This article may be written from a fan's point of view" is what the tag says and not about the content allegedly not present. Even though, a lot of criticism is there in the text which actually should be in a dedicated section and not all over the body. You need to check dictionary for the word "premier" [19], it is correct. You can right anyway you like but when you add it to the article, it will still be subject to scrutiny. How is the text incoherent? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Already explained, the rubbish you reverted back in and the removal of the well written prose I had added. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not incoherent,or rubbish as you call it, even if not so good at prose. Your content about the Balochistan activities is still there. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Request for comment

Which version should be retained in the article? (number 1) This all of which is sourced to the academic press, or (number 2) This one with all the reliably sourced content removed?

• (1) Reliably sourced content should be restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)