Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Large Changes

I have removed most unsourced references in the article. If you're going to edit the article, please discuss it in the talk page first, and ensure that your additions are sourced. Otherwise, I will request protection for the page. CSHunt68 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

I build this page. All references are sourced. Please do some research before removing them off hand. If you continue to do this, I will request protection for this page. Mercenary2k (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't own this page, so nobody cares that you "build" it. Not all of your references are sourced, and I have again removed the offending ones. There are more than a few notes in the article which rely upon two sources - one of them, at least, seems very sketchy at best, and I am tempted to remove them unless other corroborating references can be found. Feel free to do so, or I will alter the article to more closely reflect reality.CSHunt68 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As well, I have re-added the References tag, and added an NPOV tag. Clearly, there are too few sources being used for too many allegations. Please discuss changes before making them. If you think these tags should be removed, please state why.CSHunt68 (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose that everything from Officers on down - most of which has NO references - be deleted, keeping only the Controversies section, which duplicates much of the Operations History section. The only references on any of these later sections are in Operations History, which draws upon such a small number of sources (some very questionable) that it seems pointless and unencyclopedic. Thoughts?CSHunt68 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything has adequate references. Do not change this article.Mercenary2k (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have every right to change this article. And I've already told you that large sections STILL do not have ANY references. Not only that, but you have repeatedly added notes that are not referenced at all. Also, I do not consider one small (clearly VERY biased) Internet article sufficient reference for providing such a large percentage of the entry.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, you have AGAIN reverted to an old, unreferenced version of this document. For the last time, DO NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT without first discussing them here. You did not even remark on the changes you made - which seems your usual modus operandi. Stop.CSHunt68 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, you're resorting to reverting changes without logging in? Do you really think a checkuser can't be run on this IP address? If you revert this page again today, I will report you for violating 3RR - simple as that. Once again, you are not permitted to add unreferenced material to Wikipedia, and "rvv" is not a sufficient edit summary for the changes you've made. Period. This is your final warning.CSHunt68 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to dictate what is acceptable and what is not. You dont own wikipedia buddy. Everything that is written in this article is fully cited. Read the book I reference if you are that dubious about it. But dont go and do blind reverts when you dont have sufficient proof. This is your last warning.Mercenary2k (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are in grave danger of violating 3RR on this article, and have deleted a large FULLY REFERENCED section to add large TOTALLY UNREFERENCED sections. The Operational History section has several entries which are not referenced at all, and many which rely upon one very small web page. I have not done blind reverts. I am attempting to stick to Wikipedia guidelines. I have warned you on your talk page. If you would like to be blocked, please continue on your current course of reverts without discussion here. If you would like to discuss this article, please start off by proposing why the large sections (which have NO references - Officers, Recruitment) which you have added should be retained. It is not enough to prompt users to read referenced books - Wikipedia entries must be properly referenced and sourced.CSHunt68 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(ui) Mercenary2k, since you continue to make changes to the article without discussion, I am left with the fact that your reverts are vandalism. I will continue to revert such changes immediately, REGARDLESS OF 3RR, as Wikipedia policies permit, until you come to the table to talk.CSHunt68 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, this is at least the second time you're reverted this article without logging in to Wikipedia. Are you interested in discussing changes to the article? If so, please let me know here. I have asked for input from other Wikipedians here MANY times, including yourself - and directly on your talk page - and you have not, to date, responded positively. Please advise. CSHunt68 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, I have reverted and posted at WP:ANI regarding your behaviour, as well as on your talk page.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CSHunt68 stop your vandalism. I know you are an Indian in disguise trying to undermine this article. Get a life. All the missions and rest of your reverts have proper citations. Dont know why you are so obsessed with this article. Mercenary2k (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noted your activities (continued revert, failure to discuss changes here, deletion of my entries on your talk page, deletion of your edit-warring warning from an administrator on your talk page, and your useless, uncivil, and untrue posting here) in WP:ANI. Your behaviour is not appreciated.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are an Indian. Why dont you go to the Research and Analysis Wing and edit that and leave this alone. Mercenary2k (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not an Indian. Stop your whining and ranting. The current problems with the article are, as noted previously: several large, totally unreferenced sections; your removal of a large HEAVILY referenced source; your use of a single small web page for a huge number of entries in the Operational History section. Do you care to address these comments?CSHunt68 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those large and heavily sourced areas are op/ed articles written by people who are anti-pakistan. Get some neutral sources. The Operational History section is referenced from books, and websites. There is not a whole wealth of material on ISI's operational history so this is the best we have to do for now. If you can find other sources be my guest. But don't remove cited sources. These issues have been addressed. 216.13.76.61 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, that they're "anti-pakisan" (sic). They are heavily referenced, and should be added back. The Operational History section needs to be referenced properly for Wikipedia standards. And MOST of the items don't come from books, they come from ONE website. If that's the best that can be done, it should be deleted. It can't be added back unless it's properly cited. These issues have not been addressed that I can tell. If so, where. Please sign in properly. CSHunt68 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "South Asia Analysis Group " :
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html| title= Dangerous game of state-sponsored terror that threatens nuclear conflict| accessdate=2006-05-05| first= Rory | last= McCarthy}}
  • {{cite web| url=http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper287.html| title=PAKISTAN'S INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI)| accessdate=2006-05-05| first=B| last=Raman}}
• "FAS" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/|title="Directorate for ISI" article on FAS, Intelligence Resource Program}}
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/| title= Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI]| accessdate=2006-05-05| first=John| last= Pike }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

protected due to edit war

As a result of the recent edit war between CSHunt and Mercenary2k, I have protected the article for 1 week. Please resolve your content disputes by discussing in this talk page. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

protected due to edit war

As a result of the recent edit war between CSHunt and Mercenary2k, I have protected the article for 1 week. Please resolve your content disputes by discussing in this talk page. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous solution, as you would have noticed from Mercenary2k's behaviour, if you'd investigated AT ALL. Here's what's going to happen: I'm going to ask Mercenary to discuss things on the talk page. He's going to ignore me. I'm going to post on his talk page - and perhaps administrators are as well. Mercenary is going to delete these postings. The block is going to expire. For lack of any discussion, I'm going to BE BOLD and implement the changes I feel are appropriate - by reverting. Mercenary is going to revert my changes, noting "revert vandalism". Rinse and repeat. You need to find a better solution.CSHunt68 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested actions will only cause a longer protection of the page. Please refer to dispute resolution processes to resolve your edit dispute with the other party. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As you are aware, I am TRYING dispute resolution. Your intervention has been SINGULARLY unhelpful. Please stay away, if you are unable to otherwise help resolve this issue. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, I am asking again why you have deleted a large, heavily referenced section (ISI and Militant Groups), while retaining both sections which are totally unreferenced (the ones I've been deleting) and one that draws almost exclusively on one small web page (Operational History). Please involve yourself in the discussion.CSHunt68 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those large and heavily sourced areas are op/ed articles written by people who are anti-pakistan and besides all of that is already covered in the controversy section. No need to create another section where you can do more ISI bashing. G The Operational History section is referenced from books by people who ran the ISI, and websites from people who are ISI experts. There is not a whole wealth of material on ISI's operational history so this is the best we have to do for now. If you can find other sources be my guest. But don't remove cited sources. These issues have been addressed. 216.13.76.61 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They aren't heavily sourced. They mostly aren't sourced at all. Don't accuse me of "ISI bashing". You're violating WP:CIV. The Operational History section is mostly sourced from ONE website. It's not enough. These issues are far from being addressed. Please sign in, Mercenary2k. CSHunt68 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are back to square one as you guys have resumed the edit war without trying any resolution via discussion. I have protected the page for 2 weeks, and will indef-protect it if you do not reach a resolution by this time. PLEASE start a discussion listing the core of your contention. --Ragib (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I can't help but notice that my edit sat there for two days, and TWO MINUTES after Mercenary2k reverted, you protected the page, Ragib. Interesting. Ah, well, enjoy your ISI bias. If I muster up the will, I'll ask for a review of your actions and third-party intervention. You seem terribly biased towards one side of the discussion. Not surprisingly, I guess.CSHunt68 (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put the discussion back up on WP:ANI, regarding both of your behaviours. Your behaviour, in particular, Ragib, is ridiculous. I am going to ask that, as in involved party, you stay away. Apparently, you decided against that the first time. Your actions are ludicrously transparent.CSHunt68 (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

CSHunt68 all you do is nag and complain. Get a Life. The citations for the operations does not come from a website it comes from a very popular and well respected book. It was the most in depth book on the ISI and you have casually dismissed it. Ragib is perfectly correct is restoring this to its current version. You just have to accept this and move on. Mercenary2k (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you FINALLY logged in to join the discussion. The sections on this article need to be CITED if that's the case. Provide page references to whatever books you're referencing. Otherwise, they're UNREFERENCED. That doesn't address the other two points: that you're DELETING a large, fully referenced section; that most of the entries from the Operational History section come from one very small website without any corroboration. What do you have to say about that? Ragib has not restored this - YOU did. Ragib is merely backing up your version. I will continue to be bold, in the interest of Wikipedia. And stop deleting my comments from your user talk space. It's not your page.CSHunt68 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is "get a life ... accept this and move on" your effort at discussing? Just wondering, for the record.CSHunt68 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, both of you, there is no "correct version" here. I have simply protected whatever version the article is at the time of protection, without any preference for any versions. If you continue this revert war, I will block both of you. Hope you get back to your senses and have a civilized discussion to list out your differences. --Ragib (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm asking you to de-involve yourself, as I deem you a biased party to this discussion. In case you have more language issues, this is in no way "a threat" as you've so casually remarked in WP:ANI. You would think an editor who was involving himself REPEATEDLY would look at the discussion log on the article and the user's talk spaces and see who was trying to build consensus and who was ignoring attempts. Very clearly, you did not, which I called you on the first time. Again, please let a neutral party be involved, and stay away. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are being untruthful about any bias, and clearly I have neither edited the article, nor expressed any opinion on who is right here ... it is upto you and the other editor to fix this. I merely prevented an edit war by protecting the article, and that was my first action today when I logged in. I will not sit back when you guys start the edit war, and I will take action per wikipedia policy to prevent your relentless revert war. Furthermore, I want to express the fact again that I have no opinion or knowledge of the dispute in this article, and don't intend to gain any "knowledge" from either you or Mercenary2k. Let us know when you have discussed issues and amicably reached a consensus. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not being untruthful. Your actions speak volumes. You have TWICE protected the article with Mercenary's version - once, within TWO MINUTES of his revert, after leaving it alone with my version for over 24 hours. Please stay away, and let other NEUTRAL admins, take any necessary action. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, you need to get over your imaginations, and focus on *this article* and your arguments for supporting your version. Once again, all protected versions are wrong versions, and almost invariably results in illogical claims such as yours. Once again, I have not expressed any preference for any sides here, and WILL not allow new edit wars between you and other users here. Thanks for asking me not to prevent your revert war, sorry can't do that. Please get back to your discussion and dispute resolution with the other user. Thank you. Good luck. --Ragib (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to try to resolve this issue if you stayed out of it. That's all. Why is that so hard to understand? No illogical claim at all - the timeline is there for all to see. My version is up for 1639 minutes. Mercenary reverts, and two minutes later, you protect. *shrug* It's pretty black and white to me. What are the odds that it happened the way you said? Pretty slim. I think you're biased, and you should recuse yourself for that reason. Thanks for the good wishes. I'd like to think something will come of it, but I doubt it. You've pretty clearly indicated that you intend to stay involved. That speaks volumes, too.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I now clearly understand why you assume bias, don't want to spell out the ugly reason ... but anyway, I have mentioned multiple times and it really doesn't matter what you imagine things to be. If you expected me to be logged in when you made your "revert", you should have cleared up my schedule so I could log into WP at that precise time too. And for the final time, whether you like it or not, I will prevent edit warring between you and other editors in this article. If you don't like it, please feel free to report any further prevention of edit wars. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stated why I assume bias - because you've evidenced it. There's no "ugly reason". ??? Logic dictates that it is extremely unlikely that it happened as you said, and I've asked you to let other editors involve themselves, or not. I will continue to report your behaviour to WP:ANI, should I feel it warrants it. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"Logic dictates"? So your wonderful conspiracy theory is as follows: I get a message from Mercenary2k via some imaginary media, and rush to log into Wikipedia, and right away protect to his version? Nice try!!! Anyway, here is a link that will be useful for you Special:Contributions/Ragib. Please bookmark the page and it will enable you to keep your ever watchful eye on my edits. Also, from time to time, feel free to comment on my admin action in the ANI page, assuming that is not as frivolous as this one, but anyway you are always welcome to do so. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 05:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(ui) "Conspiracy theory"? Not at all. I'm accusing you of being biased. Yes, the way you put it (imaginary media, notwithstanding lol) is precisely what I think happened. Again, I've stated my opinion, and the evidence for it. There's really nothing left to discuss. Thank you for permitting me to comment on WP:ANI. It's always nice when an admin tells you it's okay to do things. I have no desire to monitor your edits. I merely wish you to uninvolve yourself here, as I think you're biased. Sorta why they let lawyers involve themselves in jury selection ... CSHunt68 (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, you state some "ugly reason" - which is perfectly obvious - yet make no comment about Mercenary's repeated remarks to me. Looks like more bias, from my perspective. Anyway, if you're done, I can get on with trying to get civil, constructive remarks from Mercenary2k.CSHunt68 (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you and m2k got into edit warring over your versions, and because I stopped it, you yelled bias at both times. Fine. I can't change your imaginations, but I won't listen to your illogical demands of not protecting the article. Please don't forget to report any violations of policies by m2k here or at ANI (coupled with diffs). Also, here are some principles you should find handy in your discussions -- namely, WP:V, WP:NPOV. Have a nice day. --Ragib (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

NO, actually, I didn't. The first time, I said that your protection of the article would be fruitless, in light of Mercenary's behaviour to that point. No bias at all. I think your actions the second time smack of bias. Please stop wikilawyering your WP: references at me. Prove my bias wrong by uninvolving yourself. If so, I will apologize for my accusations. I used WP:ANI to report m2k before, and you involved yourself, and nothing happened. I have tried DR on many occasions, and been met with disdain, WP:OWN, and racist remarks. There is no moral equivalency between the two sides of this argument, despite your declamations. Clear?CSHunt68 (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Large Changes (again)

Problems with the current version:

1. A large, fully documented section, ISI and Militant Groups, has been removed. Why?;

2. There are no citations for Officers - Recruitment, Officers - Training, Operations - Functions, and Operations - Methods. If they are from books, they should be cited. If they are from web pages, they should be referenced;

3. Many of the entries in Operations History are uncited.;

4. Most of the entries in Operations History are based on one very small web page. It looks sketchy to me, and I think those entries need further corroboration.

I propose, once again, that these changes be remedied. If references cannot be provided, Wikipedia policy states that they should be removed. Much of this could be OR, as far as I can tell.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a great start towards resolving your conflict. One suggestion ... please provide links to the diffs in the above statement, so that people can understand which sections you are talking about. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the version I propose. All uncited sections have been removed, the entire Operations History section has been removed, and the ISI and Militant Groups section has been re-added:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&action=edit&oldid=253011078 CSHunt68 (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have any comments? I've asked for outside opinion on the Third Opinion page.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put a note in Mercenary2k's talk page requesting him to take part in this discussion. Since he has disabled/not specified an email, I could not send him the message via email. --Ragib (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen his response on your user page. Sure seems like the page protection has helped him work towards consensus building. I will continue to await APPROPRIATE, CIVIL response ON THIS PAGE.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest getting a third opinion and trying to focus on sections that require sourcing. Just a quick glance at the History section shows it all be unsourced and some serious POV ("lost its importance", "regained its lost glory"). I agree that they should be removed until a source is provided, but reverting back and forth is not productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I posted at 3O days ago.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Still no response from 3O, but it's still there.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

History section

Doing a section-by-section breakdown, I don't see a single source for the History section. There is a lot of conjecture as to the rationale behind certain decisions which should be eliminated if they cannot be adequately sourced. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've left it in, because it actually seemed one of the "better" cited sections (with a SMALL number of citations near the bottom). But, a huge, heavily cited section has been continually deleted by Mercenary2k - ISI and Militant Groups, so it seems citations or lack thereof aren't an overriding concern for him.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

South Asia Analysis Group as a source

I don't think that [1] can qualify as a reliable source. While the website is using a 2001 article from the former Indian Interior Minister, we should be trying a more direct source. The fact that the website is hosted on something called the American Computer Science Association, Inc., which clearly has an agenda, makes me concerned. I see that its usage is fairly benign but I'm still concerned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. And, of course, it's used as a reference for a very large number of entries in the Operational History section. Those entries that HAVE references, that is. ... I'd propose deleting it.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon looking at it in great detail, it looks like it's been used as the source for a HUGE percentage of the article. I've posted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, asking for neutral opinion.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The two responses I've gotten are fairly negative. One even suggests indicating that the quoted sections are the opinion of the author - something I did with this article once, but was reverted by Merc. We may have to consider something like that again. Or doing away with anything using that as a source, which I've proposed.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Officers section need sources

I see that the Officers section needs sources. The training section seems too informal (discussion about the 'pep talks' is largely irrelevant and unnecessary detail). The sections should be focus on what is unique about ISI training or what is being specialized. There are some very serious implications about the ISI's duties which need good sourcing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I've pointed this out on many occasions. Frankly, it smacks of synthesis and OR. I'd propose deleting it.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Operations subsections

Ok, the Operations subsections for Functions and Methods are extremely sensitive and need sources. Claiming that espionage is a primary function without any source is probably a no-no. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Again, no citations whatsoever. More OR, it looks like. Delete.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Operations History section

First, do anyone think it would be better organized in straight chronological order? I would rather merge it with the history section above (which would be completely eliminated in its current state) and cut out a lot of details. Instead of listing every single operation, we should try to focus on operations that resulted in changes to the ISI as a whole. Also, we need to use more neutral descriptions than the "U.S.-backed guerrilla war to oust the Soviet Army from Afghanistan" (let's try the article title,s like the Mujahideen movement within the Soviet-Afghan War). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

With so many entries with no references, and so many referring to the South Asia Analysis Group web page, I'd move to just delete the whole thing. It all smacks of so much conjecture, OR, and POV.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Objectives? Organization: Departments?

The reference (4) [2] which this section [3] is based upon is the same as (6) [4]. In addition, this reference DOES NOT SUPPORT anything in the Objectives section. Another source is going to be required, or THIS section should be deleted. As well, Organization: Departments [5], which apparently draws exclusively from that web page, has a lot of synthesis and OR, IMO. It needs serious editing.CSHunt68 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this moot now, by my later sections? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by CSHunt68

1. A large, very well-referenced section, "ISI and militant groups" [6] belongs in the article. There is very little in the current Controversies section which overlaps with this, and that section could easily be edited so that there is no overlap. ISI and Militant Groups could (should, probably) also be a subsection of Controversies, if that seems to fit better.

2. There are no citations for Officers - Recruitment [7], Officers - Training [8], Operations - Functions [9], and Operations - Methods [10]. These sections, as they stand, should be deleted.

3. Many of the entries in Operations History have no references, and should be deleted. Further, many of the entries in Operations History which _do_ have references are culled from one very small web page [11]. I've asked for opinion on this page on WP:RS/N [12], and the two outside opinions are that the site is sketchy, at best, and probably very biased, at worst. Anything that can't be corroborated by a second source should be either deleted, or edited to indicate that it is the author's opinion. The rest of the entries need page number citations for their various references. In the final analysis, since the operational history of an intelligence organization is going to certainly be very murky and incomplete, I would prefer to see this whole section deleted.

Comment: I'm assuming there is a second party here who disagrees with the above-mentioned changes. That party is encouraged to detail their viewpoint below. BradV 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mercenary2k.CSHunt68 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Mercenary2k

ISI and Militant Groups is a bunch of Op/Ed Pieces written by very hostile authors. Find some neutral view points. As for Officers, Recruitment, etc... I will get citations for those. Its in a book I have. As for Operations, thats totally cited, I will add page numbers from the book just to make cshunt68 feel better. CSHunt68 is obsessed with deleting every relevant section of this article and whats left when a person comes to view this page is just a very large piece of controvery section. This person clearly has a biased agenda from the very beginning. He has espoused nothing but to delete this and delete that. Mercenary2k (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion by BradV

Initial observations:

• First of all, the edits that added in the section on ISI and Militant Groups also removed very large sections of the article. The sections entitled Officers and Operations removed in this edit have no sources whatsoever. That does not mean that this information needs to be deleted, it means it has to be sourced, and if that is impossible, reworked or removed. Same with the information on ISI and Militant Groups added in the same edit. Most of it, especially the first sentence, appears to be biased and inadequately referenced. This does not mean that it has be removed, it means that it has to be sourced better.

I asked for those sections to be sourced many times, and they weren't. They don't need to be deleted if they're _properly_ sourced. But, the vast majority of the ISI and militant groups section is very well referenced. I will work over it, and combine it with "Controversies", to remove perceived bias. Keep in mind that any "controversy" section is, naturally, going to seem anti-ISI in its statements.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if you looked for sources for the Officers and Operations sections, or if you just deleted them without trying. (The same goes the other way, of course.) With regards to the controversy section, can you post a more neutral version of it, complete with sources, somewhere on the talk page? BradV 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I checked ALL the web pages referenced, and books that I have that may have had that information. I will post a more "neutral" version of it very shortly.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What books on ISI do you have and which websites have you visited? Please do tell. I am really curious to know. Mercenary2k (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• The reason this page was protected was because there was too much edit-warring going on and not enough communication. Let's gather sources for the various sections that need sourcing, place them here on the talk page, and work on creating wording that, ideally, everyone can agree on before adding it into the article.

I asked for communication dozens of times. I want to see some of the proposed edits before they're made. Mercenary has GRAVE problems with civility and ownership.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The current protection expires December 5. If we can some good communication happening here we can ask for that protection to be lifted early, as there are obviously improvements to the article that need to be made.

Yep. I tried making them, and will continue to try to make them. But ... see below ...CSHunt68 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Let's keep the article as the topic of discussion, not its editors. BradV 03:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to put up with continuous personal attacks and incivility. Until these remarks are retracted, I am NOT assuming good faith on Mercenary2k's part. Tonight's remarks are merely more evidence towards that conclusion.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

As I just said, comments such as these are unhelpful, and do not belong on an article's talk page. BradV 04:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please compare the two original viewpoints, and tell me which is more useful for building consensus. One of us is RESPONDING to incivility, one of us is STARTING it. That's all I'm going to say on the topic.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit locked

Please could someone change the settings so established users can edit. thanks Chendy (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have startet to translate the article into Norwegian bokmål/riksmål, the link to the bokmål/riksmål version is [[no:Inter-Services Intelligence]] - it should be added to the list of different language versions of the article, as I can not do due to the article being locked. Ulflarsen (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The page was locked following an apparent edit war. It won't last much longer, and in the mean time feel free to post suggested edits here and they can be added when the page protection expires and if there is consensus for them. I've just added the Norwegian interwiki link as suggested above - Ulflarsen, when you have a moment can you check if it works? Euryalus (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It works, thanks a lot. Best regards, Ulflarsen (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Officers section

I have removed the entire unsourced officers section here. While the 3O from User:Bradv suggested looking for sources, at some point, since User:Mercenary2k added those sections himself over two and a half years ago, it's time we stop asking him for the sources and move on. Also, I don't think he should be the one asking what sources everyone else has read when it was his addition. Mercenary, since you added it, do you know where it came from? Second, given the current situation, I am concerned about the impact of writing things like "the agency does things based off the KGB, the CIA, espionage" without a source. While they may do that, those are pretty serious allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot this diff from that last recruitment paragraph and the training section was only added in July of last year. Still, I think my point is generally valid. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge history sections

I think we should merge the history and the operation history sections. Since the second lead paragraph discusses its history, I would put objectives, organization, operations and then the history of it. Any other ideas? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

MyCareerGuide.net as a source

Ok, I removed the entire Recruitment section again. I'm sorry but this is not a reliable source. MyCareerGuide.net posting by "admin" are nowhere near reliable enough especially since we are talking about currently functioning foreign government agency. This kind of information needs to be better than that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

PakistaniDefence.com as a source

In the Departments section, I removed all information from PakistaniDefence.com which I don't consider a reliable source and replaced with the (albeit less and perhaps older) information from [13], the Federation of American Scientists, which is probably reliable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Politicsbharat.com as a source

Here, I removed the citation to PoliticsBharat.com (now a dead link) and replaced them with the Federation of American Scientists. While normally a dead link would be replaced with Template:dead link, I'm highly doubtful that PoliticsBharat.com was a reliable source anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Image removed

I removed the image that User:Mercenary2k added here. I'm concerned about the possibility of original research. Where is the distinction between "Key strategic, military & economic partners", "Key strategic and economic partners", and just general "Economic Partners" coming from? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2008 (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 [14] 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 [15])

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)

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. — Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 16 October 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" [16], 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to exclude such material at this time. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Support for domestic terrorists

Trying another approach Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.<ref name=Wilson1>{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=John|title=Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism|year=2005|publisher=Pearson|isbn=978-8129709981|pages=80}}</ref> The ISI have close ties to [[Lashkar-e-Taiba]] who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.<ref name=Green>{{cite book|last=Green|first=M. Christian|title=Religion and Human Rights|year=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Chapter 21|isbn=978-0-19-973345-3}}</ref> Pakistan denies all such claims.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/diplomat-denies-pakistan-role-in-mumbai-attacks-1521700.html | location=London | work=The Independent}}</ref><ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/pakistan-denies-governmen_n_147395.html</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/07/world/fg-pakistan-india7 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Laura | last=King | title=Pakistan denies official involvement in Mumbai attacks | date=2009-01-07}}</ref> The ISI have also given aid to [[Hizbul Mujahideen]].<ref name=Sisk>{{cite book|last=Sisk|first=Timothy D.|title=International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets|year=2008|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0415477055|pages=172}}</ref> The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.<ref name=Martin>{{cite book|last=Martin|first=Gus|title=Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues|year=2009|publisher=Sage|isbn=978-1412970594|pages=189}}</ref><ref name=Palmer>{{cite book|last=Palmer|first=Monte|title=At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism|year=2007|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|isbn=978-0742536036|pages=196}}</ref> Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.<ref name=Martin>{{cite book|last=Martin|first=Gus|title=Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues|year=2009|publisher=Sage|isbn=978-1412970594|pages=189}}</ref>The ISI also helped with the founding of the group [[Jaish-e-Mohammed]].<ref name=Wilson2>{{cite book|last=Wilson|first=John|title=Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism|year=2005|publisher=Pearson|isbn=978-8129709981|pages=84}}</ref> The ISI also founded [[Al-Badr (India)|Al-Badr Mujahideen]] who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.<ref name="Schmid (Editor)">{{cite book|last=Schmid|first=Alex|title=The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research|year=2011|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-415-41157-8|pages=540}}</ref> Which version should be retained in the article? (number 1) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=471830324 This] all of which is sourced to the academic press, or (number 2) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inter-Services_Intelligence&diff=prev&oldid=471828955 This one] with all the reliably sourced content removed?

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

• Oppose: The content has NPOV issues in its current form and is already covered in a neutral way. In case any thing is missing, it should be proposed here and added in a neutral form. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. (Although not precisely for the same thing - but a relevant RFC is also taking place for a similar issue at Talk:Taliban and my proposal there should be taken as an example of what I mean when I say attribution). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Poorly Phrased RfC What is the actual dispute here? siafu (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the RFC needs a neutral rephrase to present views of both sides and what is being disputed here. I reverted his additions regarding criticism which were not neutrally phrased, he chose to call an RFC but I guess DS's proposal, the current section and objections need to be added in subsections to this RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So seriously, what is the actual dispute? siafu (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is that what I have just quoted above in the RFC has been reverted out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs)

The purpose of this RFC should be to fix this in a neutral way and avoid duplication instead of a 'yes/no' one. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until the POV problems in question are solved. The label "domestic terrorists" for Kashmiri pro-freedom groups is also controversial and contentious and should not be used, since WP:Terrorist itself states that the use of "value-laden labels" is best avoided. To maintain WP:NPOV, use in-text attribution to describe who exactly calls Kashmiri groups fighting "against Indian interests" as terrorists/militants. It would be wise to bear in mind the old adage that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Mar4d (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the word 'militant' along with attribution is used in such cases to be neutral. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Seperatist groups" would be even better, since it entirely kills off the debate of who is, and who isn't, a terrorist/militant. Mar4d (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. That will then be able to include the non violent or non banned ones. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources call them terrorists as that is what these groups are. We use what the sources use per WP:V Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

For instance, Hizbul Mujahideen "1998 Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists" Chronologies of modern terrorism pp272 "the Kashmiri terrorist organisations, such as the Hizbul Mujahideen" Terrorism: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow pp3 Combating terrorism: strategies of ten countries pp313 Root causes of suicide terrorism: the globalization of martyrdom pp29 All of these high quality sources call Hizbul Mujahideen a terrorist group. I can do the same with the other groups if needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Even when external sources (which could be reliable and take bias at the same time and would also have editorializing) are stating non neutral terms, wikipedia still has to be NPOV. Staying neutral is one of the basic concepts here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you now saying academic sources "editorialize"? It is hardly not neutral to call a terrorist group Terrorist. It is not for us to decide which terminology to use, that way lays WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What I mean to say is reliable sources editorialize, as far as I see that is one of the requirement for a source to be reliable. But then wikipedia doesn't straight away uses the same terminology unless being mentioned in that perspective (in which case it is attributed to the source as well). --lTopGunl (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, newspapers editorialize. Academic sources tend not to. I only use academic sources in case you had not noticed. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:USERG and the above section in the link. I guess now I'm clear. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

And your point in linking to that was? I have never used a SPS. So no, you are not even remotely clear. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

To prove that reliable sources which you claim to use would then have editorial oversight... books or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Which I claim to use"? Sorry, please let me know when I have used an unreliable source. And I believe you are confusing editorial oversight with "editorializing", these are very different things. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not said that you used an unreliable source. I said that a reliable source would have an editorial oversight, it would be phrased per that perspective, while wikipedia observes NPOV. A reliable source is not necessarily a neutral source or does not necessarily presents all points of view. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I endeavor to use only academic sources, as they tend to be Peer reviewed And they also tend to present all points of view. This is why academic sources are considered the best sources on wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your assumption that an academic source will automatically present all points of view. This dispute is a proof against that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Crossposted from WP:NPOVN

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

No, it doesn't comply. You should never present something contentious as fact. Because "Pakistan denies all such claims", you therefore need to add in-text attribution to the claim(s)—i.e., "according to so-and-so, ...". Also, are there some relevant quotations/exerpts from the book references you can provide us with? Nightw 18:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

it is hardly contentious as all mainstream sources say this. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

But Pakistan denies the claim. That makes it contentious. So oppose unless the attribution is added to the text. And I still haven't seen quotations from the sources, so these need to be verified. Nightw 22:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a hint, see the reception section, where already these things are present in attributed form. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Which claim does Pakistan deny then? And you asked for quotes when? Yesterday? It is not contentious whatsoever as Pakistan view is a minority of one. However if you can find, say 10 academic sources which say they have not sponsored terrorism attribution can go in. I think 10 a reasonable number given the thousands of sources which say they have founded, supported, and continue to support terrorist and insurgent groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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.