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
Line 304: Line 304:
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018 ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018 ==


{{edit semi-protected|Inter-Services Intelligence|answered=yes}}
{{edit semi-protected|Inter-Services Intelligence|answered=no}}
Please add "by [[Robert Cawthome]]" after 1948, in the "Founded" tab of the infobox. He was the guy who founded ISI and it will be great if we have a wikilink to him in the box. Thank you in advance. [[Special:Contributions/202.163.125.35|202.163.125.35]] ([[User talk:202.163.125.35|talk]]) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add "by [[Robert Cawthome]]" after 1948, in the "Founded" tab of the infobox. He was the guy who founded ISI and it will be great if we have a wikilink to him in the box. Thank you in advance. [[Special:Contributions/202.163.125.35|202.163.125.35]] ([[User talk:202.163.125.35|talk]]) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:14, 6 January 2018


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.
Reclosing this again, per the section above's consensus, and a third administrators opinion has been provided that this should be closed. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 19:18, 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

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.

Request for comment 4

{{rfc}}

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should the article have separate sections for the following. (Relisting RFC) Facts, not fiction (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ISI support for the Taliban. This is well documented. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] [14] [15][16][17] [18][19][20]
  2. ISI human rights abuses. These are well documented. [21][22][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. ^ 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
  2. ^ Gardner, Hall (2007). American global strategy and the 'war on terrorism'. Ashgate. p. 59. ISBN 978-0754670940.
  3. ^ 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)
  4. ^ 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
  5. ^ 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
  6. ^ 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
  7. ^ Hilali, A. Z. (2005). US-Pakistan relationship: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Ashgate. p. 248. ISBN 978-0-7546-4220-6.
  8. ^ Rumer, Boris Z. (2002). Central Asia: a gathering storm?. M.E. Sharpe. p. 103. ISBN 978-0765608666.
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ 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)
  11. ^ Hinnells, John R. (2006). Religion and violence in South Asia: theory and practice. Routledge. p. 154. ISBN 978-0415372909.
  12. ^ 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
  13. ^ Armajani, Jon (2012). Modern Islamist Movements: History, Religion, and Politics. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 48. ISBN 978-1405117425.
  14. ^ Bayo, Ronald H. (2011). Multicultural America: An Encyclopedia of the Newest Americans. Greenwood. p. 8. ISBN 978-0313357862.
  15. ^ 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)
  16. ^ 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
  17. ^ Litwak, Robert (2007). Regime change: U.S. strategy through the prism of 9/11. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0801886423.
  18. ^ 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
  19. ^ Atkins, Stephen E. (2011). The 9/11 Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 540. ISBN 978-1598849219.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ Jackson, Richard (2011). Terrorism: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. Chapter 9. ISBN 9780230221178.
  22. ^ "Pakistan: Security Forces 'Disappear' Opponents in Balochistan". Human Rights Watch.
  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.

— Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Strong oppose all: See my comments on above two RFCs which were closed 5 times, with consensus from 3 admins, if I remember correctly and an article for the same was AFD'd. There's no consensus for adding such POV content which means WP:POINT should be kept in mind while considering this discussion yet again... per WP:SNOW, this content has no place in the article being hardly neutral and another discussion would be counter productive. I guess speedy closures are usually requested at such RFCs, but I'll leave it to admins or other editors who comment to voice this. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the sake of completeness, links to previous RfCs that are hidden in the archives will speed things up. siafu (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it just got archived. Here's the link [4]. The other one is right above. Here are the closures: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and the AFD. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support, provided they are written in a straightforward, factual and unbiased manner, all claims are backed (not SUGGESTED) by reliable sources, and they are reasonably concise (that is, don't use EVERY source listed here!) Just the facts. No conjecture, no comparisons, no quotes. Otherwise, No Opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Comment: Repeatedly opening the same RFC could be construed as gaming the system. If an earlier RFC didn't result in the underlying content issue being resolved, dispute resolution can be continued in mediation. In the instant case, I don't have access to the books listed as sources, but to the extent they're written by experts in the respective field and criticise the ISI (not Pakistan in general) for abuses, then such criticism must be included in the article. In my opinion in this case a single "Criticism" section would suffice, where each significant (=covered in RS) criticism would be presented neutrally, probably using some kind of attribution. The size of the "Criticism" section in the article should be in rough proportion to the mindshare the criticism has in RS. If criticism for abuses amounts to a significant aspect of treatment the ISI gets in reliable sources, then no editorial consensus can validly exclude the criticism from the article, since not presenting it would violate WP:NPOV. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments.
  1. I'm new to this issue on Wikipedia. Looking at the previous material, I see that the AfD close in March 2012 said, " Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism ... is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made),"
  2. I see that the same few editors have been involved in this from the start, and wider attention might help.
  3. I also see that the extremely fair-minded admin who closed this has also closed all or most of the previous RfCs, so I do not see that the number of them is relevant. I consider them all to be consistent, as I would expect them to be: they give strong support for including the sections.
  4. Therefore I think that this content can and should be included. Some of the language used is a little prejudicial, and should be modified--the situation is just as well expressed by neutral wording. I am not sure of the relevance of the books--we would need page numbers and proposed quotations; I suspect they are most of them based on the same material and express the general consensus, but may not necessarily be to the point about each individual item.
  5. .I don't think the level of section headings makes much difference.
  6. I call attention to Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants which I think has no justification for existence as a separate article. It seems to be mainly a rewording of the deleted article. I'd support G4/A10 on it. If there is any unique but usable material, it could be first integrated. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 31 July 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.

Reception and allegations

I think this can go under reception while the contents in reception can go under allegations as they are all described as allegations. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. -- SMS Talk 07:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ISI Officer Found Leading Taliban In Faryab Province

The body of a Pakistani ISI officer was discovered following a firefight in the Faryab province of Afghanistan on the 6th July 2015. I have included a news video but my credible source is Janes. [1]

edit. added Janes citation [2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.tolonews.com/en/fara-khabar/20431-farakhabar-pakistani-intelligence-officer-killed-in-faryab-as-officials-say-foreign-militants-increased-in-north
  2. ^ Marty, Franz (14 July 2015). "Taliban Offensive in Faryab province 'led by ISI officer'". Janes Defence Weekly Vol 52, page IX. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Operations of the Inter-Services Intelligence

Category:Operations of the Inter-Services Intelligence has been nominated for merging. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False Allegations against ISI

Hi,

I have been adding text regarding False allegation on ISI in recent times which proved to be wrong (Facts and figures included), but i do not know why some people and deliberately reverting my edits because their country's allegations proved wrong. Mow, tell me what should i d?? Is not text regarding "Allegations for Support of Terrorism" included in ISI??? Si why not "False Allegation proved wrong is not being added???? Please Answer because i think its Double Standards. Thanks AKJatt (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem content

@Wiki id2: I found this text inserted by you a couple of years ago. The first citation is a dead link. I can find it on the web. It is a 5-minute video dealing with Al-Qaeda, nothing about ISI there. The second citation is available, but the cited pages 183-185 don't have anything about ISI. So, where does this content come from? Why is there a bot inserted parameter in your addition? Can you solve this mystery? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2017

In the History section, Please change the line:
The ISI was the brainchild of the former British Indian Army Major General Sir Walter Joseph Cawthorn, then Deputy Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army and selected Colonel Shahid Hamid to set up the agency.
to:
The ISI was founded by the former British Indian Army Major General Sir Robert Cawthome, then Deputy Deputy Chief of Staff of the Pakistan Army. He selected Colonel Shahid Hamid as the first director general of the agency and also served as the 2nd director general for nine years.

Reason: According to The News, Dawn and The Telegraph (India) and many other sources, Robert Cawthome was the founder and 2nd DG of the ISI. The sources in Walter Joseph Cawthorn article say that Walter served Pakistan Army for a few years and left Pakistan in 1951.

Sources: The News (includes another source fromThe Australian), Dawn, The Telegraph India

So please remove the wrong information.--139.190.118.184 (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Inter-Services Intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2018

Please add "by Robert Cawthome" after 1948, in the "Founded" tab of the infobox. He was the guy who founded ISI and it will be great if we have a wikilink to him in the box. Thank you in advance. 202.163.125.35 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inter-Services_Intelligence&oldid=818969917"