User talk:Hako9/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The TVSA Edit

The TVSA edit I made that you removed definently wasn't a test, as I felt like the page needed some extras.

I'd also like to mention that there are 2 pages of the same TV channel. One is called "Televizija Sarajevo" and the other one is called "TVSA". I don't know if you can do something about it, but it would be nice to remove one of the pages to clear out confusion. m1nt (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll merge the two but let me check the articles first. - Harsh (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Incogn99: Are you sure these are the same channels? I don't want to merge two different articles. - Harsh (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

They are, but to avoid confusion I'll give some backstory.

Basically, during Yugoslav time (in 1961), RTV Sarajevo was made, as part of the JRT system. When Bosnia declared independence back in 1992, that same channel would leave that system and become RTVBIH, or today known as BHRT. Few years after the war, a seperate channel called Televizija Sarajevo was made, which is owned by the Sarajevo Canton.

I'll make some updates to the page if needed. m1nt (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(TVSA = Televizija Sarajevo) m1nt (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Incogn99: Can you specify explicitly which parts of the article Televizija Sarajevo should be included in TVSA? Once the merge plus redirect is done, the page histories and talk pages will be intact so you can edit TVSA anyways. - Harsh (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't include this part from "Televizija Sarajevo" as I'm unsure if it's accurate ir not:

"Televizija Sarajevo merged with the M&H Company and became Radio Television of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992."

Other parts are fine and I'll edit the rest. m1nt (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Incogn99: Feel free to edit TVSA now. - Harsh (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

GIRGARRE

Dear Sir/Madam

It seems to me it is not made clear that a source is compulsory when one attempts an edit on an article.

That said, My source was the Riverine Herald newspaper.

Could you please re-instate it as I do not have a copy of my posted edit.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1420:245C:113D:CDE3:C866:3F27 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Account renamed

As you must have seen by the time you read this, I have renamed your account from "Harsh 2580" to "Hako9". (Actually, if you are at all interested, after the difficulties with your other proposed new user names, even this change was not straightforward. The software refused to do the rename, on the grounds that there was already a global account named "Hako 9", which is too similar. Normally I would agree with that, but Hako 9 has made a grand total of one edit, that one being on French Wikipedia in 2013, so I reckon the risk of causing confusion is negligible, and I decided to over-ride the block on the name.) JBW (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@JBW:, Oh god. I feel a little guilty for making you do this apparently frivolous thing. Thanks a lot for this. - hako9 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't feel guilty, because if you do I will have to feel even guiltier. I had my account renamed, and it caused more trouble than your rename did. JBW (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You should remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Ayurveda.[1] I pinged an uninvolved admin who commented there before and apparently has a better understanding of the relevant incidents to the discussion than admins.

But you are doing nothing more than displaying gross assumption of bad faith by falsely accusing me of a "ploy". You should strike your comment or remove it. Azuredivay (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Shoo away @Azuredivay:. - hako9 (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Orwell Society

Dear Hako,

I see you did some significant adjustment to get the article over the line, for which I am very grateful - you didn't have to do that but perhaps after 8 months of trying in good faith and failing, you felt sorry for me. I will now try to manage and enhance it. Manage (because it will be the target of abuse - anything Orwell is out there, so it needs some protection) and enhancement is as much about my own learning and desire to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, which I have supported financially and in other ways for 15 years. My first question is how do I change the title to "The Orwell Society"?

Many thanks for your help...Guy WF Loftus (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy WF Loftus, I did the page move, as you've noticed. Just a small advice would be to go through WP:OWN and WP:NORG, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS in case you haven't done so. You don't need to worry too much about vandalism. Wikipedia has quite a robust system to deal with it. - hako9 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Guy WF Loftus:, Also see WP:COI. - hako9 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your steer today, which was expected and I can feed back more robustly to the Society in the future to avoid repeat errors. I am not accustomed to being the gatekeeper for a site with different interest groups but I guess I must get used to it and be more robust in pushing back.

I do however, have a question about Wikipedia's handling of primary sources - as an academic, we have different techniques to get around crucial facts that have not been published (e.g. pers.comm) but I have seen the deed of legal transfer of the Orwell Statue (and will obtain a copy if required), which has not been published anywhere that I am aware of - it is nonetheless an important attribution to the Society, which defines it as an institution of interest (owning a public monument). Short of asking the BBC to issue a public notice, is there a smarter way for me to do this?Guy WF Loftus (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy WF Loftus, as the reviewer of the article, I must ask you firstly that if you have a Conflict of Interest (Please see WP:COI) you just have to stop editing the article. A conflict would mean that you have a real life connection to the management of the society, and even a non commercial or non-financial interest. If that is the case, you must disclose it and make edit requests on the article's talk page. - hako9 (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no connection with the management of the Society but I did ask the management for their feedback on the entry to make sure I wasn't saying anything that they were not comfortable with, which has the potential to be self-serving for them. I will maintain my original position for general public interest. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Guy WF Loftus: Just to clarify about the Orwell Statue, you just can't add an information/fact to wikipedia if it isn't already in the public domain. Even you were able to produce the title deed, it wouldn't matter. That is just a primary source. And wikipedia isn't a court of law. To be short, if an info is in the public domain and in a reliable source, you can write about it on wikipedia article too. If not, then you can't. - hako9 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Clear thanks (hard to break academic habits of decades) Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy WF Loftus, regarding the COI thing, just know that, for instance, I can't write an article about say, my friend, because I wouldn't be able to maintain a neutral point of view. That is reason why we advise newer editors to take a look at the policy. Hope you understand. - hako9 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am coming to understand - sorry that you should have become my teacher (I don't mean to waste your time in educating me! but I do appreciate it...) Guy WF Loftus (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Guy WF Loftus, Oh please. Never say sorry. And you are NOT wasting my time. I think you made a great article, which only needed some formatting. Keep editing. If you need any help regarding wiki policies and guidelines, you can ask me or just place a {{Help me}} on your talk page. - hako9 (talk) 06:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I have a feeling I might take you up on your offer in the future (but will investigate options first). I have removed any mention of the statue until it is publicly announced, preferably by the BBC. Guy WF Loftus (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Edits to Florida Wing Civil Air Patrol 4 SEP 2020

Hako9:

I noticed that you reverted my edits to this article, believing the external links I added "seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I can appreciate your perspective; however, I disagree and think you've made a mistake. I am an Officer in the organization, and, as such, added external links to the group of subordinate units within the organization to which I belong. These links go to various pages with additional information about each linked unit. When readers access the article and want more information than the article provides, they can click these links for more specific information regarding each of the 13 subordinate units I edited. Additionally, there have been edits to the number of subordinate units in our organization that caused this article to be outdated, which were also reflected in my edits.

I have read the general guidelines for external links and considered this before adding these links:

Under ″Links normally to be avoided"

• Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject*,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:
• 10. Social networking sites..."

As Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit organization, most subordinate units operate with a Facebook page serving as an official page containing factual information about the subordinate subject of the article. For this reason, I believe their inclusion is justified and necessary.

Please revert these edits and thanks in advance for your help!

Jvh-illustrata —Preceding undated comment added 05:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jvh-illustrata: I don't see a way around that, I am sorry. You can include 1 link in the External Links section on the article though, as per WP:ELMIN. - hako9 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hako9: The language of the GUIDELINE specifically states:

• "EXCEPT FOR A LINK TO AN OFFICIAL PAGE OF THE ARTICLE'S SUBJECT",[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to: §10. Social networking sites"

That language infers that this is a GUIDELINE -- not a rule. And, As these subordinate units operate with Facebook pages as their official web pages containing more factual information about the article's subordinate subjects, I believe your assessment is wrong. These pages should be linked as official pages of the article's subject, containing additional information for each subordinate unit.

Please revert. Thanks.

Jvh-illustrata (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2020

Jvh-illustrata, I am sorry, but editors can't break the guidelines. If you think an exception is justified, you can just undo my edit, but I can't ensure you that some other editor won't revert it back. - hako9 (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput

i wasnt attacking, i was only asking question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

why you deleted my message??? i was asking question, not attaking.

can i not ask even question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 02:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jarfow: Calling mods and other editors who don't agree with you, fascists, will not be taken kindly. Please also see WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are for discussion about the subject and the content, so keep your comments focussed. - hako9 (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ok sorry... but where i can ask question in this site? it is important... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jarfow, If the questions are about the article's subject matter or its content then the article talk page is preferred (proviso you follow WP:TPG). If you need general/broad help you can visit WP:TH or place a {{Help me}} on your talk page so some uninvolved editor can help you. - hako9 (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

ok i was waiting for answers. thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 03:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Jarfow, I see you've placed the template on your talk page, but you should also ask your question below the template. - hako9 (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

i added {{Help me}} on talking page but no one is sending me any message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Replies are not instantaneous. All other editors are volunteers (like yourself). So you'll have to wait until someone checks dashboard. - hako9 (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

i got a message now. thanks bro... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarfow (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder regarding conduct concerns

Hi Hako. As you might have noticed I have closed the ANI discussion you started. While I didn't note it in the close, I did want to drop a note that strong claims require strong evidence, even when presenting evidence of misconduct. The implication that Andrew was obsessed in inappropriate ways with a 16 year-old is a strong claim. If true it could be a reason for a foundation ban - the strongest penalty there is on Wikipedia. I do not think the evidence presented supported such a strong claim and judging from the lack of others who echoed your claim supportively (and this is distinct from comments some made about Eco-anxiety on the whole) I don't seem to be the only one. I would ask you keep this in mind should you find yourself presenting conduct concerns at ANI (or other conduct forums) in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions about this - feel free to ping me or here or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Everything going on in the United States affects his campaign. Your logic is a recipe for putting everything about Trump under his campaign.--Zeamays (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Request on 00:20:34, 23 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Icleep

• Icleep (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kavita Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Hako9, thank you for your comments on the draft article for Kavita Kapoor. Following the advice given by you and the second reviewer, I have tried to add independent secondary sources to support the article's statements and have removed statements that cannot be substantiated in this way and any external links in the body. Could you please advise as to whether these changes have satisfied your concerns, and if not, what further steps I should take? Icleep (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Icleep: The most important concern is that none of the sources are reliable or mainstream. A websearch and a perusal of the draft leads me to believe that the subject of the article surely fails wikipedia's notability guidelines, WP:GNG. The content issue cannot be corrected in a way to resolve the notability concern. So I really can't advise you further. Please also read WP:NBIO. - hako9 (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aurora Expeditions (November 24)

-->They refer to Aurora Expedition's ship, the Greg Mortimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mortimer_(ship). First paragraph here refers to Aurora Expeditions(https://www.foxnews.com/travel/half-antarctic-cruise-passengers-greg-mortimer-coronavirus). Wanna use that instead?

Citations need not only be from reliable sources, but the sources also need to cover the subject as the main focus of their piece. All the reliable sources that you are trying to cite don't lend any support to WP:NORG. Apart from that, all these are based on a single run-of-the-mill event. - hako9 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Never asked me

So when you said "Oh well. Sorry if you're bored. But may I ask what's the reason to keep these tabloid claims?" in direct reply to me (and at that point the only person commenting) you did don't mean me?Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

And "You are obfuscating with your drivel" comes close to violating wp:npa. I suggest you reign in the attitude before you cross the line.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, That is a talk page discussion. That comment wasn't specifically for you. Also don't quote NPA when there are no personal attacks. You are obfuscating with your drivel, is not personal attack lol. So, don't threaten me. - hako9 (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to indent so that indirect questions are not directed at a user, as yours was here. And I am not threatening you, I am asking you to stop pushing the boundaries of civility before you cross over into PA's. Its advice. If I was threatening you I would say "do it again and I will report you", I have not said it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not everything is a wp:battlefield, and a battleground mentality can lead to sanctions if it goes too far.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, you quote policies as if to threaten me without actually doing so. I will politely refuse to engage. - hako9 (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

New message from DiplomatTesterMan

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019) § Removing Vivekananda International Foundation sources/ other changes/suggestions. DTM (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the unnecessary comments on my part. DTM (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, Dude, did you see the state of this article before the criticism started If you want me state the obvious, then yes ofcourse, it shows how much work you've done and the effort you've put. Much more then I've ever done on wiki. It doesn't need to be stated. I had a suggestion/concern whatever you'd like to call and I stated it. That's it. - hako9 (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I definitely think I have a problem with articulation. I am sorry if I came across as an asshole. - hako9 (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes all sorts to make a world. I wasn't pointing out the effort put into the article, least my effort. Anyway....

DiplomatTesterMan has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!

One of Gita's most famous verses says something like— the fruits of your actions are not for your enjoyment...Even while working, give up the pride of doership (Ch 2.47). I couldn't really decide which template to use here, Template:Disengage seemed too strong, Template:Nice cup of tea seemed to mild... peaches seem a little disconnected yet "juicy". DTM (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Parag Agrawal

The world roundly is defined as "in a vehement or emphatic manner" also the "editorial language" was attributed to conservatives. I'm not going to do anything about it because I don't care but the statement was not puffery or editorializing.Viktory02 (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Viktory02: I respectfully disagree. Even if the word or any similar word/phrase has been used by the article or several articles, we shouldn't use it. We only have to report facts and not mirror anyone or any group's opinions. MOS:EDITORIAL is very clear. And this a textbook example. - hako9 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

IK talk page controversy section

Hi Hako9,

Unfortunately, due to commitments outside of Wikipedia I could not address this matter earlier. However, I saw your comments regarding the Imran Khan page on OBL controversy accusing me of bias or more specifically "yes bias" and "whitewashing".

If you look at the edit history, someone other than me added the fact that a spokesperson for Khan said criticism around the remarks was 'unwarranted'. The original paragraph exists in the edit history before I made changes and before you reverted them. I haven’t made any changes to the controversy section since your edit as I don’t want to indulge in an edit war and hope this issue can be settled with a discussion.

As a fellow wikipedian I believe I should be given the benefit of the doubt (assume good faith on my part) - and would greatly appreciate your respect of this principle. Regarding the alleged use of "false equivalence" or "false balance" or worse manipulation of WP:NPOV, for this particular series of edits I did not intend to water down his remarks, rather it is to embed his remarks in a broader context of public policy -- in particular that context is that Khan's critics have labelled him an Islamist sympathiser or 'Taliban Khan'.

I believe the scope you have suggested is too narrow - essentially it ignores that the OBL remarks are embedded within a wider debate of Khan being an Islamist sympathiser. Narrow scopes are okay for summaries and titles but not for main sections and subsections. For example, it's okay for one to point out in the article summary that Khan has been accused of using political targeting, but the controversies section properly elaborates on this with the accusation that Khan is pursuing a political witchhunt and the counter-argument that Khan's government has prosecuted members of his own party such as Aleem Khan and Jehangir Tareen, both of which are true and justified by reliable sources. Since those earlier controversies are elaborated on, I see no reason that this controversy which is very deeply debated should only be subject to a 2 line discourse, if the discourse was in the summary then yes I understand its only 2 lines at max per topic but this is not in the summary this is in a sub-section.

Demonstrating how in fact the utterance of three words ("shaheed kar dia") is insufficient to denote a full political position beyond sloganeering, IK has used the very same language (verbatim: martyr) in an English-language interview with a renowned Indian journalist (Barkha Dutt) around 10 years ago, shortly after the killing of OBL - but this interview is in English and he elaborates on his position specifically saying "In fact, he [OBL] has become a martyr to a certain segment" --> this fleshes out IK's position and shows he doesn't believe OBL is going to heaven as a martyr -- rather IK believes that a certain segment of society believes OBL's going to heaven as a martyr. Nevertheless, since wikipedia is not a place of opinions and one can hold an alternative interpretation (i.e. that IK said something in parliament in 2020 in favour of OBL based on the utterance of only three words) then the thing a responsible wikipedian should do is to balance the different viewpoints and maintain neutrality rather than expressing a viewpoint which is tinged with one's own inclination -- hence I did not delete the remarks IK issued around June 2020. I only added content before and after which showed the position of those who defended his overall political stance (rhetoric and policies) versus those who criticised it (again rhetoric and policies).

I have sources backing up what I'm saying - I hadn't used this one in the article earlier because I'm unsure as to how youtube videos are properly referenced and how to timestamp long interviews. But a video interview in English with follow-up questions that clearly states his political position is far better than an Urdu translation of a speech without full detail of political position (so not assuming a political position based on uttering very few words).

Timestamp: 9:30 to 12:45 "in fact the way OBL was killed he's become a martyr to a certain segment of people so he's [OBL] probably more an inspiration" "If I was them [the Americans] I would have done what they did with Saddam Hussein, put him on trial. Just like they did with the Nazis who were responsible for some 50 million deaths they still put them in Nuremberg in a trial, this is what civilised societies do". - Imran Khan interview with Indian journalist Barkha Dutt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryR0I4NjQQk&ab_channel=UmairKhan

If you think this requires further discussion, I'm all for it and willing to discuss at length, however I hope this debate can be amicably (and cordially) resolved before such a point.

TL;DR (too long; didn't read) -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryR0I4NjQQk&ab_channel=UmairKhan (video timestamp 9:30 to 10:45) IK's full position is that OBL should have been put on trial like Saddam and like Nazis in Nuremberg "and de-mystify the whole thing", but of course it's fairly obvious he isn't a Nazi sympathizer. (Wiki id2(talk) 18:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC))

Wiki id2, Everything outside of talk-quote markup here, was my personal justification, based on my interpretation of policies, for removing the said text. I acknowledge that the 'unwarranted' remark wasn't added by you. This is diff of that edit.

But that is beside the point. I had an issue with these edits of yours in particular [2], [3]. [4]. None of these are bad faith or unconstructive edits, by any stretch of the imagination. I should have articulated this better on the talk page where I pinged you. That said, these edits had the effect of diluting the news reports, weren't neutral and gave a false balance. I have quoted the relevant policies for removing the said sections.

Everything you say from I believe the scope you have suggested is too narrow[...]but of course it's fairly obvious he isn't a Nazi sympathizer., is a logical argument, but totally unfit to be added to an encyclopedia.

This is the text that stands, as of now, in the article.

On 25 June 2020, Khan came under criticism, both in the international press and from the domestic opposition, for calling al-Qaeda founder and 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden a 'martyr'. Khan, on a previous occasion during a local television interview, had refused to call bin Laden a terrorist.

According to me, this is a fair, neutral and concise reporting of what's mentioned in the reliable sources. You've gone off an oblique tangent and the justification in your reply is basically just original research. To add anything more than those two lines in the article, would be a disservice to the reader. That is my opinion. But you can ofcourse, modify that para if you think I am wrong. There is no question of edit warring here. If you decide to modify that para, I may only start a discussion on the talk or maybe start an rfc. Rest assured, I will not revert any of your edits. I hope you understand I am not being combative, but we just have a difference of opinion about what to and what not to include in the article. - hako9 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

To add, I pinged you specifically on that talk page, because, as far as I remember, I used this mediawiki tool and it outputted your name on the section that I wanted to remove. So I wanted to have a discussion in case you had a disagreement. With so many intervening edits, I should have checked the history to ping exactly those who added that content and not you in particular. So I apologise for that. - hako9 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hako9:

Hako9, your position boils down to 2 different criticisms being levelled. (1) You are saying it's not relevant i.e. a 'tangent'. (2) You are saying it is original research.

Regarding the first position, it is relevant because clearly the PM of Pakistan section discusses more than only Khan's OBL remarks, the state has what is called a national security policy and the OBL remarks should be seen in the context of a national security policy. Clearly the allegation levels with the critique of his political opponents who call him 'Taliban Khan'. While we are on point 1 a concise summary is not the only purpose of writing on wikipedia, this is a subsection and can be elaborated.

Your second point regarding original research is something I do not agree with either. It is not original research, clearly he said the words in an interview and can be directly quoted from that interview and that too in an English language so I am not inferring anything through translation either. WP:NOR states "This [original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". The interview he gave with Barkha Dutt is directly attributable as a quote and doesn't constitute original research. Khan himself said that he believes OBL has become a martyr to a certain segment.... should have been put on trial... to demystify the whole issue. These are not my words nor am I inferring anything that would constitute a violation of WP:NOR.

I'm not going to revert your edit purely because that is not a constructive way to be a wikipedian, especially since some of the news regarding national security situation is quite fluid given events in Afghanistan. I'm referring to the recent collapse of the talks with Pakistani Taliban (TTP) after multiple "credible" sources said the Pakistani government had already released prisoners, and then the TTP themselves cancelled the talks confirming that Pakistan had in fact not released their prisoners (according to Associated Press AP News Agency). I'm happy to move this discussion to the IK talk page. I would like to discuss the points regarding TTP and AQ/OBL here, there or wherever because I'm fairly certain that conciseness is different from omission. And I believe what you are suggesting is omission rather than conciseness. Feel free to disagree with me. (Wiki id2(talk) 10:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC))

Wiki id2, No offense, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of core policies. You are on a tirade to find a deep meaning to what the man said. That is not what we do. "The allegations levelled by his critiques" and "Taliban Khan" and "Barkha Dutt interview"...what bullcrap are you talking about? All this is irrelevant to what he said. He called Bin Laden a martyr. That's it. We report it as is. What he meant prior, or your explanations and wp:synth of sources have no bearing on what is written. - hako9 (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hako9:

It's unfortunate that you are resorting to potshots like suggesting someone is "talking bullcrap", I would rather not be subject to such language. What you are doing is overlooking a fact which is legitimate to report. It is not original research to say IK has condemned the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) the information in those sources is quoted verbatim and is directly from the source. Regarding the "Barkha Dutt interview..." it is clear that he has a position on this matter which is that he called bin laden a "martyr" but clearly said he has become a martyr to a certain segment. I'm not committing any original research here either. I'm simply reporting the fact that Khan said in an interview to Barkha Dutt that OBL became a martyr to a certain segment. Clearly his position is equally explained in the source I said in addition to the sources you are citing. And I'm certainly not on a tirade to find a 'deep meaning', it's a simple statement of fact that in the interview, Khan said the way he was killed, he OBL has become a martyr to a certain segment of society. It's an objective statement of fact. There's no WP:synth here, since I'm not using this source to build a premise for my own conclusion. I'm merely reporting what's said in the source. And I'm afraid that ultimately is relevant to what he said. I'm reporting it as it is based on what he said word-for-word quote, not what he meant and so it isn't synthesis.

I'm open to criticism but accusing a fellow editor of talking "bullcrap" is clearly beyond the mark. And the intention of my discussion with you Hako9 was not to revert back to the original edit but rather to provide information on constructively taking the article forward. (Wiki id2(talk) 21:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC))

Wiki id2, Picture this. I say, murder and rape is bad. This would be an obvious platitude and a banal statement, right? If a political leader says this kind of thing, will it be covered in press? No, right? What if he, a decade later qualifies his statement to say, murdering and raping people is sometimes very good. Should both these statements be covered or only the latter. I say only the latter and you say, both statements. This is an obvious attempt to give false balance. So while you keep harping on the same thing, about Khan saying earlier that Bin Laden was a martyr to a section of people, I feel, and I am very confident in saying this, that it doesn't deserve an iota of consideration.

The only thing that deserves a mention is that he on 25 June 2020 said Bin Laden was a martyr, and he saying a different thing a decade ago, is not relevant, in the same way that a politician saying murder/rape is bad = not relevant, and saying murder is sometimes very good = extremely relevant.

All the things you've written to me about Aleem Khan, Jehangir Tareen, TTP, the hidden context of shaheed kar dia etc etc, are irrelevant to the reader and to follow the martyr remark in the article with the context that you've framed here, is wp:synth.

Also, please just chill out dude. Don't take a huge issue out of me saying bullcrap. I hope we are adult enough to tolerate an informal tone from each other. You can reply to me saying what an idiotic argument I made, and I won't take offence. I promise. When I removed the sections out of that para and pinged you on the talk page, I didn't mean to accuse you of bias, npov, bad faith editing. It was just that, in my opinion, the said text did not adhere to our editing guidelines. Nothing I've said is a personal attack on you. I only find your justifications for inclusion of some material incongruent with our policies. - hako9 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5