This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
1995 attack on the Pakistani embassy in Kabul is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Looking at the Afghan civil war category I came along this ... article. I have conducted changes because of blatant source falsification and other "great" stuff. The following are two examples to illustrate what I mean. There were two Taliban attacks on Herat, one in February/March 1995 (not of interest here) and the one in September 1995, which led to the protests. In the case of the September 1995 attacks, Ahmed Rashid writes in "Pakistan and the Taliban":
"The paramilitary [Pakistani] Frontier Corps were used to help the Taliban set up an internal wireless network for their commanders in the field. Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and the Air Force sent in technicians to repair Kandahar Airport and the MiG fighter jets and helicopters the Taliban had captured. ... When the Taliban launched their second attack on Herat, the [Pakistani] ISI weighed in with a limited amount of military support."
Mar4d made the following out of it:
"According to an April 1998 column published on The Nation by Ahmad Rashid, the Taliban's attacks on Herat in 1995 were independent actions."
Then there is the sentence added by Mar4d: "Accusations of support have always been categorically refuted by Pakistan." The sentence is sourced to sources which say "although the opposite was true". One source headlining: "Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists". The article made no mention of this. JCAla (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
And the giant smokescreen you added is not source falsification and WP:COATRACK? Under the pretext of source falsification, you removed whatever content the article had in its original shape and filled it up with sources that are completely irrelevant to this article and do not even have anything to do with the embassy attack. You copy-paste the same shit COATRACK over dozens of articles without checking whether it's relevant. In a way, that is itself a violation of the letter and spirit of the mediation started on this topic in the first place. Discuss here please whatever objections you have before proposing major changes next time, and as for irrelevant walls of text, they will not be accommodated in this article. Mar4d (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You should self-rv immediately as you restored multiple source falsifications. This is considered disruptive editing and damages the wikipedia project. The text is completely relevant as William Maley identifies exactly the described historic circumstances as the background to the protests: "There is no doubt that Pakistan played a pivotal role in making them [the Taliban] a military instrument. This was in the context of the failure of its client Hekmatyar to deliver the outcomes which the [Pakistani] ISI had desired, and the bitter resentment towards Pakistan which built up amongst the victims of Pakistan's strategy, most notably displayed in an attack on Pakistan's embassy ..."(The Afghanistan Wars by William Maley, p. 216)JCAla (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I am trying a compromise here. The source falsifications must go. There can be no discussion about that. But I am fine with adding only a shortened background version as a temporary compromise until further discussion takes place. Note that nothing in the new version is part of the mediation dispute as everything has been attributed. JCAla (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've made a general revert to status quo per BRD. Follow the mediation rules now. If there's OR, it can stay.. this is not a BLP... though I doubt it being OR in the first place. I support the WP:COATRACK claim by Mar4d. When the discussion here (or about it at mediation is complete, we can then remove any proved misinterpretations). --lTopGunl (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)